[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
Anil T.M vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2025
WA NO. 696 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:64553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 696 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.10291 OF 2025 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
ANIL T.M.,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. LATE THANKAPPAN, ANIL SADANAM, ULLANNUR P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689503
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.S.SUMESH
SRI.ARUN BABU
SHRI.ANEESHRAJ R.
SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
SHRI.SHINE S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH
BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL,
BORDER SECURITY FORCE, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110003
WA NO. 696 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:64553
3 INSPECTOR GENERAL,
FTR HQ (SPL OPS) ODISHA BORDER SECURITY FORCE, POST-AIR FORCE STATION
(AFS) YELHANKA, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560063
4 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
BORDER SECURITY FORCE, SECTOR HEAD QUARTERS, VALLAKADAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 689503
5 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL ( COMMUNICATIONS),
FRONTIER HEADQUARTERS, BSF, YELHANKA, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN -
560063
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.DINESH, CGC
SHRI.DAYASINDHU SHREEHARI N.S., SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING RESERVED ON 19.08.2025, THE COURT ON 26.08.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 696 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:64553
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-Court Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala
High Court Act 1958 assails the judgment dated 18.03.2025 passed in
W.P.(C) No.10291/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed
the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner
in the writ petition is working in the Border Security Force (BSF) as
Inspector, SHQ, Thiruvananthapuram, who has been transferred from
Thiruvananthapuram to 136 Battalion, Odisha.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the
order of transfer was passed in gross violation of the transfer policy as
well as the Rules. The appellant had challenged the order of transfer on
the ground that he had been transferred even before completing three-
year tenure as mandated in the BSF transfer policy. He had also
submitted a representation [Ext.P5] to the second respondent, but no
action is taken on the representation. The appellant had also taken a
WA NO. 696 OF 2025
4
2025:KER:64553
ground that he has to take care of his son, who is suffering from lumbar
spine issues due to a motor accident.
3.1 Further, it is contended that the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition holding that the transfer was neither mala
fide nor against any service Rules. Without calling response from the
respondents or considering Ext.P7 judgment, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge also failed to
appreciate the provisions of the Border Security Force (Tenure of
Posting and Deputation) Rules 2000. Therefore, it is prayed that this
Writ Appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order of transfer dated
24.02.2025.
4. In response, the learned Counsel for the Union of India
submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the
petition as the transfer policy is only in the nature of guidelines having
no statutory force, and the impugned order transferring him has been
passed looking to the administrative exigency and also on the ground
of misconduct and discipline. Rule 5 of Border Security Force (Tenure
WA NO. 696 OF 2025
5
2025:KER:64553
of Posting and Deputation) Rules 2000 provides for inter-battalion
transfer, which reads thus:
“5. Contingencies for posting out of the parent battalion. Save as
contained in rule 4, the competent authority may consider inter-
battalion posting of the members of the Force on the following grounds.
(1) Routine transfer to static formations due to turnover of the
members of the Force on completion of field service. The posting to
static formation shall be for a period of three years only, and thereafter,
the member of the Force shall revert to his parent Battalion:
Provided that in the cases of the members of the Force who belong to
the ministerial cadre, their tenure with the static formation shall be
four years.
(2) On grounds of operational, training requirement, misconduct and
discipline,
(3) On medical grounds as provided for in rule 11.”
4.1 The learned Counsel further submits that the case of the
appellant falls within clause (2), and, hence, he has been rightly
transferred. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ
petition. Therefore, no interference is warranted.
5. Heard Mr Aneeshraj R, learned Counsel for the appellant,
and Mr N S Daya Sindhu Shree Hari, learned Senior Panel Counsel for
WA NO. 696 OF 2025
6
2025:KER:64553
respondent Nos.1 to 5, and perused the records.
6. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge would
clearly show that the learned Single Judge concluded that the police
guidelines do not have a statutory flavour. Transfer and postings are
the subject matter better left to the discretion of the competent
authority, and the Court should be loath to interfere with the transfer
and posting of the employees, especially the members of the
disciplinary force. The transfer of the appellant is neither mala fide nor
is there any violation of the statutory rules. The appellant has not
taken any such grounds in the writ petition.
6.1 Transfer is only an incidence of service, and only on the
grounds of personal inconvenience or that the tenure has not been
completed, cannot be a ground to interfere with. Moreover, it is well-
settled law that the transfer is an incidence of service. Which employee
should be posted where is a matter for the appropriate authority to
decide. The Supreme Court, in the case of Namrata Verma v. State of
U.P. vide order dated 06.09.2021, passed in SLP (Civil) No.36717/2017,
WA NO. 696 OF 2025
7
2025:KER:64553
has held that “It is not for the employee to insist on transfer him/her and/or
not to transfer him/her to a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer
an employee, considering the requirement. Until and unless the transfer is
vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the
Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer”.
6.2 The Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of judicial
review in the matter of transfer, has held that “transfer is an incidence of
service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any
administrative guidelines regarding transfer of an employee are violated, at
best, the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher
authorities for redressal of his grievance”.
[See: Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State Bank of India
v. Anjan Sanyal, (2001) 5 SCC 508, Public Services Tribunal Bar
Association v. State of U.P., (2003) 4 SCC 104, State of U.P. v. Gobardhan
Lal, (2004) 1 SCC 402, R.S. Chaudhary v. State of M.P., ILR (2007) MP
1329, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Venkata 4 WP. No. 4738/2017
(Braj Kishore Paliwal v. State of M.P.) Ratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345 and
WA NO. 696 OF 2025
8
2025:KER:64553
State of Haryana v. Kashmir Singh, (2010) 13 SCC 306].
6.3 A transfer order can be challenged if it violates any
statutory provision (not merely guidelines), adversely alters an
employee’s service conditions, is issued with mala fide intent, or is
passed by an incompetent authority Personal inconvenience, however,
is not a valid ground for interference. None of these grounds are
present in the current case.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is perfectly
just and legal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters stand closed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
jjj
WA NO. 696 OF 2025
9
2025:KER:64553
APPENDIX OF WA 696/2025
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) A true copy of the Signal No. C/4501 dated 18.03.2025
Exhibit R1(b) A true copy of the letter No. 960/22-Comn/SHQ TVM/P and
T/2025/3751 dated 24.03.2025
Exhibit R1( c) A true copy of the SHQ BSF TVM L/No. 3827 dated 25.03.2025
[ad_2]
Source link