Kerala High Court refuses to interfere with an administrative order
The judge noted that the guidelines issued were non-statutory in nature
Kerala High Court refuses to interfere with an administrative order
The judge noted that the guidelines issued were non-statutory in nature
The Kerala High Court has refused to interfere with the transfer order of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) official of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL).
Citing that it was done for administrative reasons, Justice Anu Sivaraman said that it would not be justified to interfere, particularly because it was the transfer of a member of a uniformed service with no sustainable mala fide.
The court held, "In view of the specific reasons stated in Exhibit P9 that the transfer was necessitated on administrative grounds, this court will not be justified in interfering in an order of transfer, especially where the petitioner is a member of a uniformed service. This court cannot enter an inquiry as to the reasons for the transfer or the necessity for the same in the absence of any sustainable grounds of mala fide or violation of any statutory provisions."
The petitioner was serving as Inspector in CISF Unit BPCL, Kochi Refinery when he was transferred to the Unit in Telangana.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocates T. Sanjay, Sanil Kumar G, and Midhun R submitted that the petitioner had preferred a representation before the Director-General of CISF Headquarters. They contended that the transfer was premature since he had not completed the normal tenure of three years in Cochin.
However, last month, the representation was dismissed, and the petitioner was served with a movement order. The petitioner said that the refusal on the part of the respondents to permit him to complete his tenure at Cochin was illegal and arbitrary.
The advocates contended that the DG's decision was a non-speaking order and that no reasons were stated for transferring the petitioner before the expiry of his tenure. Relying on several decisions, the petitioner contended that a speaking order was required to be passed when the court directs consideration of the representation.
However, appearing for the respondents, Assistant Solicitor General of India S. Manu submitted that the transfer was clearly on administrative grounds. The petitioner could not claim any right to continue in a particular station for a particular tenure since his services were required elsewhere.
He maintained that the transfer was an incident of service and the scope of interference in an order of transfer was extremely limited as was held by the apex court.
The ASGI further said that the impugned order specifically addressed the contentions raised by the petitioner. It was specified in the order that the transfer was necessitated due to administrative grounds.
The ASGI also recalled that the top court had held that the constitutional courts should not interfere with a transfer order made in the public interest and for administrative reasons unless these are made in violation of any mandatory or statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.