01Facts
The petitioner, a CRPF Commandant, challenged his transfer from DIG Range, Silchar to JKZ Headquarters and a consequential signal, arguing that the transfer could affect his eligibility for promotion because he had not completed Mandatory Field Service (MFS).
pp. 1–2He also sought a terminal posting in or near his hometown in Bihar or Jharkhand, relying on family circumstances and paragraph 3(C) of Standing Order 05/2022.
pp. 1–2The CRPF stated that his earlier tenure at RTC-AVD/HQ would count towards MFS and did not object to reconsidering his request for a hometown posting.
pp. 3–402Issues
i.1. Whether the transfer could be challenged on the ground that it would prevent the petitioner from completing MFS required for promotion.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration of his request for a terminal posting in or near his hometown under paragraph 3(C) of Standing Order 05/2022.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3–603Law Applied
Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may review administrative action and direct an authority to consider a representation where the applicable policy or standing order provides for such consideration.
A member of the Force has no right to a posting at a place of choice, as transfers are governed by service exigencies and administrative and operational requirements.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4–6Paragraph 3(C) of Standing Order 05/2022 permits consideration of terminal posting at the fag end of an officer’s career, subject to those requirements; it does not confer an automatic entitlement to a particular posting.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4–604Reasoning
The Court rejected the MFS ground because the CRPF confirmed that the petitioner’s tenure at RTC-AVD/HQ would count towards the MFS requirement, and recorded that position as binding on the respondent.
p. 3 · ¶ 5Although the petitioner had no right to a posting at his chosen location, his request was based on family circumstances and a standing order permitting terminal-posting consideration. The Court therefore held that he had a right to have the representation considered, without deciding its merits.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5–605Holding
The Court disposed of the petition without setting aside the transfer order.
p. 4 · ¶ 6–7It directed the CRPF to consider the petitioner’s request for a hometown terminal posting and decide it within three weeks of receiving the order, and to communicate the decision to him.
p. 4 · ¶ 6–7The petitioner may pursue legal remedies if aggrieved by that decision.
p. 4 · ¶ 6–7Original Court PDF
Sh Ravindra PrasadvsCentral Reserve Police Force Crpf
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
