Transfer policy in central armed forces does not confer legal right to specific postings, court affirms
In a significant judgment delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the court upheld the transfer of Gurjit Singh, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), emphasizing that transfer is an incidence of service and members of the central armed police forces, such as CISF, can be transferred to any place within or outside India at any time in public interest. The court dismissed the writ petition filed by Gurjit Singh, who challenged his transfer from Chandigarh to Hisar on the grounds that it violated the couple case policy and was effected by a non-speaking order.
The petitioner argued that his transfer was arbitrary and unsustainable, as it failed to consider the couple case policy, which suggests that spouses in government service should be posted at the same or nearby stations. Singh, who had been serving in Chandigarh since June 2021, sought cancellation of his transfer due to his wife's employment in Mohali, a location proximate to Chandigarh.
The court, however, reiterated that administrative guidelines, including those concerning couple cases, are directory and subject to administrative exigencies, operational requirements, and feasibility. These guidelines do not create a legally enforceable right for government employees. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sandeep Moudgil, underscored the settled position that transfer decisions, especially within uniformed forces, are primarily governed by administrative needs, and courts should refrain from interfering unless there is evidence of mala fides, statutory violations, or patent arbitrariness.
The court also addressed the contention regarding the non-speaking nature of the order rejecting Singh's representation. It stated that brevity in administrative decisions does not render them illegal provided they are taken after due consideration by competent authorities.
This decision aligns with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in cases like Union of India v. S.L. Abbas and Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India, which affirm the limited scope of judicial interference in transfer matters, especially for armed forces and uniformed services.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment reiterates the principle that transfer is an incidence of service, with administrative and operational needs taking precedence over individual convenience. Singh's petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the transfer order as lawful and justified.
Bottom Line:
Transfer of personnel in Central Armed Police Forces - Transfer policy and couple case guidelines do not confer an enforceable legal right to claim posting at a specific station.
Statutory provision(s): Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, Section 15
Gurjit Singh v. Union of India, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2852518
