JACOB T. Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.27588 of 2021 aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dtd. 1/4/2022 whereby the writ petition filed by him was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of the above writ appeal are as follows: Appellant/petitioner has been working in the Office of the IGP, CSJWT, CRPF, Belgaum since 16/6/2015. The appellant is due to retire from service with effect from 31/10/2024. He submitted Ext.P1 application before the 1st respondent seeking for a transfer to Group Centre, CRPF, Pallipuram being his terminal posting. By Ext.P2 the application submitted by the appellant was recommended by the IGP, SCJWT, CRPF, Belgaum. The Office of the 1st respondent also considered Ext.P1 submitted by the appellant and recommended his transfer to Group Centre, CRPF, Pallipuram as per Ext.P3 communication. In the meanwhile, there was delay in issuance of transfer order due to Covid-19 pandemic, the appellant again made a request seeking a transfer to his home State which was also recommended by the DIGP, CSJWT, CRPF, Belgaum as per Ext.P6. While so, Ext.P7 transfer order was published by the Office of the 3rd respondent whereby the appellant was transferred to 33 Bn, which is now based in Jammu & Kashmir. On issuance of Ext.P7 the appellant again represented before the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P8. Thereafter by Ext.P9, DIGP, CSJWT, Belgaum again recommended the case of the petitioner. Thereupon the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P10 whereby the request of the appellant was rejected as he is not eligible for a static posting and also due to non-availability of vacancy at the requested place. On receipt of Ext.P10, appellant again represented before the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P11 to reconsider his case. It is aggrieved by the issuance of Exts.P7 and P10 orders that the appellant has approached this Court filing the above writ petition.

(3.) A statement was filed on behalf of the respondents in which a preliminary objection was raised regarding the lack of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the appellant is still serving as Inspector, CRPF, Belgaum (Karnataka) and no part of the cause of action has occurred inside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. To fortify their contentions, the respondents relied on the judgment of this Court in Indian Maritime University v. Viswanathan [2014 (4) KLT 798 (FB)], Anand Anoop v. Union of India [2014 (3) KLT 171] and Dental Council of India v. Viswanath [2018 (3) KLT 255 (FB)]. Based on the above averments, the respondents pray for an order dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable. The respondents have also answered in the said statement to the various averments raised by the appellant in the writ petition.