Rajeev.R v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/17TH ASWINA, 1937 WA.No. 2215 of 2015 () IN WP(C).27853/2015 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27853/2015 DATED 29-09-2015 ------------ APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :- ---------------------------- RAJEEV.R., No.031435213 CONSTABLE/FITTER, GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, PALLIPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 316.
BY ADV. SRI.VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :- -------------------------------
1. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, PALLIPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 316.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, SOUTHERN SECTOR, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, ROAD No.10C, NEW MP/MLA COLONY, GAYATHRI HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 033.
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERSONNEL), DIRECTORATE GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.
5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 110 001. BY ADV. SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0910-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
-------------------------------------- W.A. No.2215 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October 2015
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27853 of 2015 has filed this writ appeal challenging the judgment dated 29.9.2015. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P1, by which, the petitioner was transferred to Chattisgarh. The petitioner submitted that he had given Ext.P3 representation narrating the circumstances under which he requested for some more time to remain in the present station. But, without considering the same, he was asked to join duty at Chattisgarh. The learned Single Judge observed that since the transfer order had already been issued in terms of the norms and the petitioner had already completed four years' of service in the present location, there is no reason for the Court to entertain the claim made by the petitioner.
2.
The only contention urged by the appellant/petitioner is that he should be permitted to represent against the order of transfer.
W.A. No.2215 of 2015 -: 2 :- 3.
This request is opposed by the learned Central Government Counsel, stating that the petitioner was already asked to report for duty at Chattisgarh and he was relieved from the present office on 7.10.2015.
Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE J UDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Jvt/9.10.2015