Muhammad Haneef Ghani vs Joint Director & Ors.

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was aggrieved of the Order dated 25.08.2020 issued by Joint Director, Forest Protection Force (Respondent No. 1), wherein he got transferred to Gamma Unit K03 Budgam and consequently, he was relieved from his duty on 27.08.2020. Challenging the jurisdiction/authority of the said respondent no. 1 in transferring him to the aforesaid unit, the applicant approached this Tribunal with the present case.

He further submitted that after filing of the instant case, a transfer and posting order dated 10.09.2020 was issued by the Director, Forest Protection Force J&K, whereby respondent no. 3 was transferred and posted on the post of the applicant. The applicant had been appointed as Computer Operator in terms of Order dated 03.04.1998 and continued in the service of the FPF till 2016 when, vide Government Order dated 14.10.2016, all Information Technology related posts from the departments were withdrawn and included in J&K Information Technology Service. In consequence of the said order, the post of Computer Operator was re-designated as EDP Supervisor and thereby the applicant became the member of J&K Information Technology Subordinate Service formed after issuance of Government Order dated 24.10.2016, and not of the Forest Protection Force Service.

The applicant in the present O.A has prayed for the following reliefs:-

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents in his counter affidavit stated that the respondent no.1 is fully competent to issue transfer order of all the Zonal/Divisional Cadre posts as command and supervision of the Force at Zonal level lies with him as envisaged in Rule-9 of Forest (Protection) Force Rules-2012. He further submitted that 50 posts of Computer Operator sanctioned to the Forest Protection Force, J&K were re-designated as EDP Supervisor and are still part of the sanctioned strength of Forest Protection Force as clearly indicated in Forest Protection Force Subordinate Service Rules – 2017 issued vide SRO-422 of 2017 and also as per SRO-719 of 2019 dated 25.10.2019 in which 50 posts of EDP Supervisor in FPF belong to UT/Divisional cadre. Against 18 sanctioned posts of EDP Supervisor for the office of Joint Director and 12 Gamma Units in Kashmir Zone, the applicant can be transferred anywhere by the respondent. Transfer and posting are routine service matters. The applicant had been posted at his previous place of posting for more than 8 years and was due for transfer as per the provision of Rule-34 (4) of Forest (Protection) Force Rules-2012 issued vide SRO-264 of 2012.

We have heard at length Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Faizan Majid, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Bikram Deep Singh, learned DAG and perused the records.

The contention of the applicant is that with the issuance of Government Order dated 14.10.2016 all Information Technology related posts from the departments were withdrawn and included in J&K Information Technology Service. As a consequence thereof, the applicant automatically became a member of J&K Information Technology Subordinate Service and had ceased to be a member of the Forest Protection Force Service. He, therefore, contended that he is no longer under the administrative control of the respondents. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has brought out rules on the subject as per which the applicant continues to be under the administrative control of the respondents. He has also contended that although the nomenclature of the posts held by the applicant has been changed, the posts and its incumbents continue to be under the administrative control of the respondents and the impugned order has been issued by proper competent authority.

We feel that the contention of learned counsel for the respondents is supported by extant rules on the subject and the respondents were well within their right to transfer the applicant. It is also worth mentioning that the stand taken by the respondents is implicitly corroborated by the applicant himself, in as much as, in his prayer he has prayed for directing the respondents to restore the position of the petitioner with previous official assignments and workplace, prior to the said order. This itself shows that the applicant accepts the authority and competence of the respondents to transfer him. We, therefore, find no merit in the O.A and the same is liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above discussion, the O.A is dismissed.

Any pending MAs also stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.