Wareppam Rajendro Singh vs Union Of India

Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J

[1] Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents.

[2] Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed in the CRPF as Follower/Farash (Combatised Ministerial), which is a Group D post, by an order dated 21.04.2005. While the petitioner was serving as Follower/Farash, an advertisement was issued for direct recruitment to various posts of CRPF including the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of HC(Min) as a Departmental candidate after obtaining No Objection Certificate(NOC) from the concerned authorities and appeared in the examination and the selection process. Consequent upon his selection in the said examination, the petitioner resigned from his earlier post and thereafter, he was appointed as HC(Min) as a direct recruit candidate by an order dated 07.12.2013.

[3] After his appointment as HC(Min), the petitioner was allotted and transferred to IGP, M&N Sector without transfer benefits and he was posted to Group Centre, CRPF, Imphal by an order dated 05.03.2014. In pursuance of the said transfer order, the petitioner reported at Group Centre, Imphal on 13.03.2014 and was taken in the strength of the Group Centre, Imphal from the date of his reporting.

[4] While the petitioner was serving at Group Centre, Imphal, the DIGP, Group Centre, Imphal issued an order dated 24.03.2014 relieving the petitioner from the said Group Centre and directing him to report at Office of the IGP, M&N Sector, Imphal. Thereafter, by an order dated 13.05.2014, the DIG (Adm) M&N Sector, CRPF directed the petitioner to report for duty to the DIG, Group Centre, CRPF, Imphal. Again on 17.09.2014, the petitioner was directed to report for duty at the IGP, M&N Sector, Imphal and while he was serving there, by another order the petitioner was again transferred and posted to 87th Bn CRPF at Jiribam. Subsequently, the petitioner was again transferred and posted from 87th Bn to Group Centre, Imphal by an order dated 11.11.2017 and the petitioner was taken in the strength of Group Centre, Imphal w.e.f. 03.11.2017. In such a way, the petitioner has been following and obeying the various transfer orders issued by the higher officials and he performed his duty efficiently and diligently without any adverse remarks.

[5] Mr. M. Devananda submitted that while the petitioner was serving at the Group Centre, Imphal, the respondents issued the impugned transfer order dated 29.03.2019 transferring the petitioner from Group Centre, Imhal to 222nd Bn at Jharkhand which is under the Central Zone. Having been aggrieved by the impugned transfer order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the said transfer order dated 29.03.2019.

[6] Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following 2(two) grounds in challenging the transfer order dated 29.03.2019 :-

(a) Under Para 14 of the Standing Order No. 03/2016 dated 29.12.2016 containing transfer policy of Ministerial/Stenographic/ Official language Cadre, etc., it is provided that new appointees specially Head Constable (Min) and ASI(Steno) will mandatorily served in the allotted Sector for minimum 6(six) years and that no request for change of Sector or Home Sector/ posting will be entertained for the first 6(six) years except in emergent cases.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was newly appointed as Head Constable (Min) and just after his appointment as H.C.(Min), he had been allotted and posted to M&N Sector in 2014. Thereafter, by the impugned transfer order, he had been transferred from M&N Sector to Central Sector before he completed the mandatory period of minimum 6(six) years tenure posting in the M&N Sector in violation of the transfer policy under Para 14 of the said Standing Order No. 03/2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that on this count alone, the impugned transfer order deserves to be quashed and set aside as the authorities have issued the impugned transfer order arbitrarily and in violation of their own transfer policy.

(b) The second ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that under Para 10(e) of the said Standing Order No. 03/2016 it is, interalia, provided that the total period of posting in a Zone shall not be more than 18(eighteen) years and 10(ten) years in a sector. Since the petitioner had been transferred from M&N Sector under the North East Zone to Central Sector under the Central Zone before completion of the petitioner's tenure period of posting of 10(ten) years Sector posting and 18(eighteen) years Zonal posting, the impugned transfer order had been issued arbitrarily and ultra-vires the transfer policy contained in Para 10(e) of the Standing Order and accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

[7] In response to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned CGSC submitted that the impugned transfer order is general Summer Chain Transfer, effecting Inter Sector transfer of Head Constable (Min). As the petitioner have been posted for more than 10(ten) years in the M&N Sector, he had been transferred to the Central Sector and there is no arbitrariness or illegality in effecting such transfer.

It is the case of the respondents that even though the petitioner was newly appointed as Head Constable (Ministerial), his earlier tenure posting in M&N Sector as Follower/Farash in the CRPF can be taken into consideration while computing his total tenure period of posting in a Sector.

[8] Controverting the second ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned CGSC submitted that the transfer policy under Para 10(e) of the Standing Order No. 03/2016 only provides that the total period of posting in a Zone shall not be more than 18(eighteen) years and 10(ten) years in a Sector. The said transfer policy only provides that the maximum total period of posting in a Zone and a Sector is 18(eighteen) years and 10(ten) years respectively and it nowhere provides that a personnel could not be transferred before completion of the tenure posting period of 18(eighteen) years in a Zone or 10(ten) years in a Sector. In such correct view of the matter, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has no right to claim that he should be allowed to continue to be posted in the M&N Sector or North East Zone for 10(ten) years or 18(eighteen) years respectively.

[9] After hearing the rival submissions and after perusal of the relevant records, this Court finds that the petitioner was undeniably appointed as Follower/Farash initially in the CRPF and subsequently he was appointed as HC(Min) as a direct recruit candidate. The subsequent appointment of the petitioner as HC(Min) in the CRPF was given after accepting his resignation from the post of Follower/Farash and it cannot be said that the petitioner was continuously serving in the CRPF since his initial appointment as Follower/Farash. In fact, the subsequent appointment of the petitioner as HC(Min) is by way of fresh appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit under Para 14 of the Standing Order No. 03/2016 and he should be allowed to continue in the M&N Sector till completion of his tenure posting of minimum 6(six) years in the M&N Sector. The respondents cannot take into account the petitioner's earlier posting in the M&N Sector while serving as Follower/Farash in computing the total tenure period of posting in the M&N Sector. In this View of the matter, this Court holds that the impugned transfer order dated 29.03.2016 had been issued in violation of the mandatory period of petitioner's tenure posting in the M&N Sector as provided under Para 14 of the aforesaid Standing Order.

[10] Coming to the second point of dispute between the parties, this Court is of the view that the provision under Para 10(e) of the Standing Order No. 03/2016 is quite clear and without any ambiguity. What Para 10(e) of the said Standing Order contemplates is that the total period of posting in a Zone shall not be more than 18(eighteen) years and 10(ten) years in a Sector. It neither contemplates that the tenure period of posting should be continuously 18(eighteen) years in a Zone or 10(ten) years in a Sector, nor does it prohibits transfer and posting of an incumbent to a Zone/Sector before completion of 18(eighteen) years or 10(ten) years period of tenure posting in a Zone or Sector as the case may be. In such view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner that he should be allowed to continue in his present place of posting, i.e., M&N Sector/North East Zone till completion of tenure period of 10(ten) years/18(eighteen) years is not sustainable and accordingly rejected.

[11] As the petitioner has been transferred and posted from M&N Sector to Central Sector before completion of his minimum tenure posting of 6(six) years in M&N Sector, this Court held that the impugned transfer had been issued arbitrarily by the authority without giving any reason in violation of their transfer policy as contained in Para 14 of the Standing Order No. 03/2016. Accordingly, the said impugned transfer order dated 29.03.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside and the present writ petition is allowed accordingly.

It is, however, made clear that the present order will not stand in the way of the authorities to issue fresh transfer order of the petitioner strictly in accordance with their transfer policy.