Gauhati High Court
Uid No. 11090292 Laishram Lokendro ... vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 5 August, 2020
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010099102020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 2957/2020
1:UID NO. 11090292 LAISHRAM LOKENDRO SINGH
S/O- LAISHRAM MANGLEMIAO SINGH, R/O- VILL- MAHARABI, P.O AND
P.S- SEKMAI, DIST- IMPHAL WEST, MANIPUR, PIN- 795136 AND PRESENT
ADDRESS R/O- JANAPATH, JAYANAGAR, H NO. 14, P.O- KHANAPARA, P.S-
BASISTHA, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781022
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, DEPTT OF
HOME, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
SSB
EAST BLOCK V
R K PURAM
NEW DELHI- 66
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (PERS)
SSB
FOREC HQR
EAST BLOCK V
R K PURAM
NEW DELHI- 110066
4:THE COMMANDANT (PERS II)
FHQ
SSB
EAST BLOCK V
R K PURAM
NEW DELHI- 110066
Page No.# 2/4
5:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FHQ
SSB
GUWAHATI
NIKITA COMPLEX
HOUSE NO. 345
GS ROAD
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 781022
6:THE FRONTIER HQ
SSB
GUWAHATI
REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF SSB
GS ROAD
KHANAPARA
GHY- 2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 05-08-2020 Heard Shri LN Dihingia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri A Gayan, learned Central Government (for short CGC).
The petitioner has put to challenge an order dated 13.07.2020, issued by the Commandant (Pers-III), Directorate General, Sashastra Seema Bal, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.
By the aforesaid order, the prayer of the petitioner made against an order of transfer has been rejected. The said order has been passed in compliance with a judgment dated 25.06.2020, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.2455/2020.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the transfer order has been Page No.# 3/4 issued in the midterm when his son is appearing in the Class-X Examination from Delhi Public School (for short DPS) and is presently at Khanapara. He further submits that he is willing to shift to Patna which is the original place of transfer where a DPS is available but shifting to the present place of posting at 47 th Bn, SSB, Ramgarhwa would cause hardship as there is no DPS.
On the other hand, Ms. A Gayan, learned CGC has submitted upon instructions that pursuant to the order dated 13.07.2020, the petitioner has already been released. She further submits that the original transfer order was dated 12.07.2019 from Guwahati to Patna and the same is prolonging because of the litigations instituted by the petitioner wherein this Court had directed consideration of the representation. Lastly, she submits that transfer being an incidence of service, individual hardship shall not act as a bar and in this case, the hardship shown is minimal as the petitioner cannot have a choice of a particular school.
The rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.
The impugned order dated 13.07.2020 is an elaborate one which has given the entire background of the case starting from the initial order of transfer dated 12.07.2019 wherein the petitioner was transferred from Guwahati to Patna. It appears that the said order was a subject matter of challenge by the petitioner which resulted in an order of consideration by this Court. Thereafter, after reconsideration, the petitioner has been posted at 47 th Bn, SSB, Ramgarhwa, which is again challenged in the second writ petition leading to passing of the order dated 25.06.2020.
It is seen that the stand of the petitioner is a wavering one. While in the initial writ petition, he had expressed his unwillingness to go to Patna and in the second writ petition and even in the present one his stand is that he is willing to go to Patna but not to Ramgarhwa where no DPS is available. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding availability of a DPS cannot be accepted as DPS cannot be deemed to be the only school from where the son of the petitioner can appear for the matriculation examination. The further submission of midterm transfer cannot be accepted because the present transfer is a continuation of the initial order dated 12.07.2019 which is prolonging Page No.# 4/4 because of the litigations instituted by the petitioner. While this Court is not attributing fault on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court making the aforesaid challenges, it is a fact that because of the pendency of the cases and the matter before the authorities, the issue is continuing since 12.07.2019 till the present impugned order dated 13.07.2020.
It is a settled principle of law that transfer being an incidence of service, a writ court would be loath to interfere with such matters unless it can be established that the same has been done de hors the Rules or in a mala fide manner. In the instant case, none of the challenges pertain to any violation of Rules or in mala fide against petitioner and it is only the reason of non-availability of DPS in Ramgarhwa which has been shown.
In view of the aforesaid discussions and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already been released, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that some adverse action may be taken against him for approaching this Court.
It is made clear that to approach a writ court is a legal right which every citizen is entitled and for that purpose the authority cannot take any adverse view and would act strictly in accordance with law.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant