- (1.) Heard Sri A.S. Rai for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of repatriation dated 4.5.2008 whereby from Local Intelligence Unit (in short "LIU") he has been repatriated to Civil Polices. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was initially appointed in Civil Police in the year 1977, but thereafter he was posted in LIU in the year 1993 and since then he is continuously working thereat till the impugned order was passed. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch for transfer of Petitioner to his substantive cadre, no reason has been assigned.
(3.) The submission is thoroughly misconceived. The concept of transfer and deputation has been explained by the Apex Court in Prasar Bharti and Ors. v. Amarjeet Singh and Ors., 2007 115 FLR 57 and it has been held that a person sent in a cadre outside his substantive cadre has no right to continue in foreign cadre and can be repatriated to his parent cadre at any point of time without assigning any reason. Further, the authorities cannot be required to assign any reason, whatsoever, in an order of transfer and such power of transfer cannot be fettered by requiring them to record reason. Which employee should be posted where is absolutely within the domain of the authority concerned and unless it is shown that a order of transfer/repatriation is contrary to the statutory rules or is otherwise mala fide or has been passed by the incompetent authority, only then the Court may interfere and not otherwise. (See: State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Saxena, 1998 AIR(SC) 925 Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2007 115 FLR 363);