Navigating Transfer Policies: The Case of a CISF Head Constable.


08 July 2024 Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a recent ruling of Kamlesh Sharma v/s Union of India & Others, a writ petition filed by a Head Constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) challenging his transfer from Burnpur, West Bengal, to Bangalore was dismissed by the court. The petitioner argued that, based on a transfer policy established by the CISF, he was entitled to a 'home sector' posting after serving over 16 years in the 'out of home sector.'

The court heard the case against the backdrop of a circular issued on September 25, 2017, which outlines the guidelines for the transfer of CISF personnel. According to the circular, employees are expected to serve a maximum of 13 years in the 'out of home sector,' which includes both a seven-year first tenure and a six-year third tenure. The petitioner contended that, having exceeded this period, he should be reassigned to his home sector due to personal and familial circumstances, including caring for a father suffering from dementia.

 
 

However, the respondents contested the petitioner's claims, emphasizing that the guidelines in the circular are not binding and allow for discretion in posting personnel. They referenced specific clauses stating that the competent authority can assign postings without needing to justify their decisions. Furthermore, the respondents highlighted that, due to a high demand for home sector postings, the petitioner was found to be lower in the merit list based on his 'Net Out of Home Sector Posting' period, which ultimately led to his transfer to Bangalore.

The court found that the guidelines, while providing a framework for transfers, do not create a vested right for personnel to claim specific postings. It underscored the principle that transfers are administrative decisions governed by operational needs and exigencies, citing a previous ruling from the Supreme Court, which stated that an employee cannot assert a choice in postings.

In addressing the petitioner's argument regarding his father's health, the court noted the absence of medical documentation to substantiate the claim. It further pointed out that Bangalore, being a metropolitan area, offers ample medical facilities, which could adequately support the father's needs.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioner's transfer was justified and aligned with the operational requirements of the CISF. The decision reaffirms the discretionary powers held by authorities regarding personnel transfers, emphasizing the importance of administrative flexibility in the context of service demands. In dismissing the writ petition, the court reiterated that while personal circumstances are important, they do not override the established policies and operational necessities of the CISF. Thus, the case illustrates the ongoing complexities and challenges faced by personnel navigating transfer policies within structured organizations.