AMIT KUMAR BHATTACHARYA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2012-5-107
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 16,2012

Amit Kumar Bhattacharya Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SARASWATI, J. - (1.) THIS writ application is directed against an order dated 7th December, 2011 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in an application being OA 1367 of 2011 filed by the petitioner, inter alia challenging an order dated 6th September, 2011 of the Superintendent of Police Telecommunication West Bengal transferring the petitioner to the Katua Telecommunication station, ostensibly in the interest of public service.
(2.) THERE can be no dispute that the post of Wireless Operator is transferable. The transfer has been challenged mainly on two grounds. The first ground is alleged violation of the guidelines laid down in Police Order No. 1 of 2007 issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, West Bengal The second ground is of incompetence of the Superintendent of Police to issue the impugned order of transfer. Both the aforesaid grounds are, in our view, no grounds in the eye of law for interference with an order of transfer in exercise of power Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As rightly argued by Ms. Bhattacharyya, appearing oh behalf of the respondents, Police Order No. 1 of 2007 is in the nature of instructions, which serve as guidelines. The said Police Order is not a statutory order, and confers no legal right on the petitioner. On a perusal of the Police Order it is absolutely clear that the guidelines laid down therein are purely directory and do not confer any enforceable legal right. Paragraph 2A of the Police Order provides that Telecommunication personnel might be transferred from one district to another after a tenure of 7 years. Paragraph 2B of the Police Order provides that transfer within a district, in the district Head Quarter itself or to a sub division should not normally be ordered. However, such transfers might only be effected in Special cases, in public interest.
(3.) NO one is, however, be allowed to claim a tenure of more than seven years in one district, though there may have been transfers within the district for public interest. On a conjoint reading of sub-paragraphs A and B of paragraph 2, no person is to be allowed to claim tenure of more than 7 years in one district. Transfers may be effected before completion of seven years in the district.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.