Ravindra Singh vs Union of India

Rohit Arya, J.—Heard.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of order dated 3rd September, 2014 passed by Director General, Border Security Force in compliance of order passed by this Court dated 17/6/2014 in W.P.(s) No. 3218/2014. By the aforesaid order, this Court had required the respondents to decide the petitioner''s representation and till the decision on representation, status quo as on the date of passing of the order was ordered to be maintained. The authorities by the impugned order have dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner with reference to his transfer from BSF Academy, Tekanpur to his Parent Unit 86 Battalion, BSF at Akhnoor, Jammu Sector.

There is no cavil of doubt that petitioner has already completed 3 years tenure at present place of posting.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though he substantively holds the post in the cadre of Constable but he in fact is performing duties of Driver and therefore, as per the policy of the respondents, the tenure of Driver at given place of posting is 4 years. Since he has not completed 4 years, therefore, he could not have been transferred from Tekanpur to Jammu and therefore, the instant writ petition is preferred against the impugned transfer order passed against the policy of the respondents.

On the aforesaid premise, it is prayed that impugned transfer order be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that earlier also on petitioner''s transfer to Akhnoor, petitioner preferred W.P. No. 4113/2012 and vide impugned order dated 20/6/2012, this Court had stayed his transfer order dated 24/5/2012; however, at later stage on 20/9/2012, the aforesaid transfer order was cancelled and petitioner was adjusted at Tekanpur. It is further submitted that a detailed order has been passed by the authorities on the representation of the petitioner in compliance of order passed by this Court (supra). He referred to para 6 of the impugned order which reads as under:-

"The issues raised by the petitioner has been considered by the DG, BSF in the light of foregoing paras and it is found that the petitioner was adjusted in BSF Academy Tekanpur in Adm Staff and total tenure of Adm staff in a static location is 03 years. The duties of driver were given to the petitioner as and when needed by Academy, BSF, Tekanpur due to his driving knowledge and being in possession of having valid driving license. The petitioner upon his enlistment in BSF is governed under aforesaid GD Cadre Rules. He was adjusted in BSF Academy, Tekanpur in Adm Staff and on completion of normal tenure, he has been posted to his parent unit i.e. 86 Bn BSF at Akhnoor under Jammu Sector in accordance with notified BSF (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000, and prescribed Qualitative Requirements (QRs), 2001. Suitable replacement of petitioner has already been provided in his place and he has joined his duties. As regards to treatment of his wife and education of his children as averred by the petitioner, it is well known that adequate medical and education facilities are available at Akhnoor/Jammu. Follow up medical treatment may be undertaken by the petitioner at Akhnoor/Jammu also. These problems are common to almost every member of the Force. However, the department has full sympathy with the petitioner but it is also there that it has to keep a balance between public service and personal problem of the employees. More so, he has already availed of his normal tenure and in a Force deployed at Boarder areas of various states, it is not possible to keep an employee at the place of his choice for more than the reasonable period. The petitioner being governed under General Duty Cadre Rules for all purposes, his posting from BSF Academy Tekanpur to parent unit 86 Bn BSF is well within the purview of notified BSF (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000, and prescribed QRs, 2001."

From perusal of the record, it is evident that vide order dated 24/5/2012, petitioner was transferred from Tekanpur to Parent unit 86 Bn BSF, Akhnoor, but the transfer order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 20/6/2012 passed in W.P. No. 4113/2012; however, at later stage on 20/9/2012, the aforesaid transfer order was cancelled and petitioner was adjusted at Tekanpur. Further upon perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that in pursuant to the order dated 17/6/2014 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3218/2014, the authorities have decided the petitioner''s representation by a speaking order and also have given justification for transfer of the petitioner from Tekanpur to Akhnoor.

The law is well settled as regards transfer. In public employment transfer is an incident of service. No individual in public employment have vested rights to continue at a particular place. In service jurisprudence, the employer is the best placed person to organize its work force to its best utilization, subject of course to the safeguards as provided for under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. It is also a settled law that equality clause as enshrined under Article 14 has no application in the matters of transfer. The scope of interference in transfer matter is limited in nature viz. unless any mala fide is attributed in the matter of exercise of powers of transfer and / or in violation of statutory rules of policy, interference is not warranted. Admittedly there is no allegation of mala fide in the body of the petition. The contention that the aforesaid transfer is contrary to the respondents'' own policy i.e. without allowing the petitioner to complete tenure of 4 years as Driver, he is being transferred. It is found that the authorities while deciding the representation of the petitioner have bestowed conscious consideration over the same issue while holding that petitioner was on the post of Constable and he was adjusted in the department as Driver looking to administrative exigencies and since petitioner''s services are more required, he has been transferred to his parent unit i.e.86 Bn BSF, Akhnoor. Further one cannot be oblivious of the fact that Boarder Security Force is a disciplined responsible force constituted for security of the Nation. Petitioner is a member of said force. Obedience to the orders passed by the superior authority and due observance of discipline are the basic requirement of the force.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court declines to interfere with reasonings recorded by the authorities while deciding representation justifying aforesaid transfer order. In fact, it is the exclusive domain of the administration to place the service of employee at the place where services are more required in administrative exigency and public interest. In the opinion of this Court, petition is devoid of substance and does not warrant consideration on merits. Accordingly, same is hereby dismissed.