Writ Petition No. 7736 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- CISF Act, 1968 s. 15
Judgment
In this writ petition, petitioner, who is a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), has questioned the order of transfer, dated 28.03.2010. The petitioner is presently working under the third respondent at Ramagundam in Singareni Collieries Company Limited. By the impugned order, he is transferred to Rurkela Steel Plant, Orissa. He alleges that he was transferred to the third respondent unit only on
14.11.2008 and even before completion of three (3) years, again, the impugned transfer is made. Reliance is placed on the guidelines issued in Circular bearing No.1 of 2008, dated 28.01.2008. It is submitted that as the transfer is effected in the middle of the academic year, studies of the children will be affected and as such, he submitted
Operative part
a representation to the first respondent on 29.03.2010, but the same has not been considered. The petitioner mainly questions the impugned order of transfer on the ground that it is in violation of the guidelines issued in Circular bearing No.1 of 2008, wherein a reference is made to the provisions of Section 15 of the CISF Act, 1968, which empower the respondents to post an employee anywhere in India at any time on administration grounds. Merely because in the guidelines, three years period is mentioned, that by itself is not a ground to declare the impugned order as illegal. In the guidelines issued in the above said Circular, it is clearly stated that the tenure prescribed in the Circular is only by way of guidelines and can be increased/curtailed on administrative grounds, operational need and in public interest. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled, as a matter of right, to continue for a period of three (3) years in the same place. In any event, the guidelines are formulated implementation of in-house mechanism and the same will not confer any right on the petitioner to question the impugned order of transfer. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. However, as it is stated that the petitioner submitted representation, dated 29.03.2010 to the first respondent and the same is pending consideration, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the said representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks from today and communicate the same to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 8th APRIL, 2010. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
CISF Act, 1968 — s. 15.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.