08 July 2024 Administrative Law >> Constitution & Law Procedure  

In a recent judicial decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court addressed the petition of a Head Constable from the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), challenging his transfer from ISP(B) Burnpur, West Bengal to ASG, Bangalore. The petitioner argued that the transfer, issued on 20th May 2024, violated the CISF’s transfer policy and imposed undue hardship given personal circumstances.

The crux of the petitioner's argument rested on the CISF Circular dated 25th September 2017, which outlines guidelines for personnel transfers. According to the petitioner, he had already served beyond the stipulated period in the 'out of home sector' and was thus entitled to a 'home sector' posting. This claim was supported by the petitioner's assertion that his aged father's health issues necessitated proximity for care and support.

Conversely, the respondents, represented by Mr. Abhishek Khanna, contended that while the circular provides guidelines, these are not binding and transfers are subject to operational and administrative exigencies. They emphasized that the petitioner's transfer to Bangalore was based on the CISF's need to balance personnel distribution and operational requirements, including access to medical facilities for the petitioner's father.

The court's decision, as outlined in its verdict, delved into the interpretation of the CISF Circular. It underscored that while the circular provides a framework, it does not confer enforceable rights for specific postings. The court referenced precedents highlighting the discretionary nature of administrative transfers, noting that unless a transfer is proven to be mala fide or contrary to statutory provisions, courts are reluctant to interfere in such matters.

Regarding the petitioner's plea concerning his father's health, the court noted that while empathy was warranted, the availability of medical facilities in Bangalore rendered the transfer justifiable on these grounds.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the CISF's decision was in accordance with operational requirements and did not violate any enforceable rights under the circular. The judgment serves as a reminder of the balance between administrative discretion and individual claims in matters of public service transfers.