Transfer, Being An Exigency Of Service, Is Neither A Matter Of Right Nor Choice: Delhi High Court

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Pawan Kumar Mathuri. vs UOI & Ors. has held that transfer, being an exigency of service, is neither a matter of right nor a matter of choice Background Facts Pawan Kumar Mathuri (Petitioner) joined Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in 2010. In 2018 the Petitioner was posted at the Agra Airport where he started suffering from cold and cough due to the cold air from the air conditioners. Consequently, he was transferred to the IGI Airport in New Delhi. The Petitioner was declared in SHAPE II Category in medical fitness for the year 2023, however, he was still transferred to Sivagangia, Tamil Nadu in 2024. Thus, the Petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order of transfer by the Deputy Inspector General/Office of CISF, IGI Airport (Respondent) and for seeking a direction to be transferred as per “Guidelines for Transfer of the CISF Personnel” (Guidelines) which were issued by a circular dated 25.09.2017. It was contended by the Petitioner that considering his heath condition and considering the fact that he has already served 13 years in CISF, his posting shall be in the Home Sector as per the Guidelines On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that the Petitioner has been declared in Shape II category, where as IGI Airport requires personnel to be in SHAPE I category. Further since transfer is an exigency of service, no one can ask for a choice of posting. Findings of the Court The court observed that transfer, being an exigency of service, is neither a matter of right nor a matter of choice. Further when there is someone who is in the Discipline Force, they are bound to serve within the length and breadth of the nation which hardly leaves any scope of choice for them. Thus, everyone like the Petitioner is bound to give precedence to the directions issued by the Respondents with respect to their place of transfer. The court further observed that since the Petitioner was in SHAPE II category, it was improbable for the CISF to continue the posting of the Petitioner at the IGI Airport which is classified as a hypersensitive area and required the Petitioner to be in SHAPE I category. The court further observed that the Guidelines related to the Transfer Policy are not mandatory but directory in nature to aid and supplement the existing position. With the aforesaid observations, the court dismissed the writ petition Case No.- W.P.(C) 4793/2024 & CM 19609/2024 Case Name- Pawan Kumar Mathuri. vs UOI & OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 544 Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Counsel for Respondents- Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Ms. Prerna Dhall, GP, for UOI with Sanjay Kumar, (Officer)(Law), CISF Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Transfer, Being An Exigency Of Service, Is Neither A Matter Of Right Nor Choice: Delhi High Court

Udai Yashvir Singh

Tags