2025:JHHC:12578 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2076 of 2025 ---- Satish Kumar Singh, aged about 47 years, son of late Dinanath Singh, resident of Commandant 11 BN CRPF, Block Colony, P.O., P.S. and Dist. Latehar. ..........Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 2. The Commandant, 11 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Block Colony, Latehar, P.O. & P.S. Latehar. .........Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ---- For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-UoI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Ms. Nitu Sinha, CGC ---- 02/25.04.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the Office Order as contained in Order no. 03/2025-ORG-DTE-P3DA7-PER- DG, dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-6), issued by the 1st Respondent; whereby the Petitioner has been transferred from 11-BN CRPF, Latehar to IG-CTG, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the Respondent-authorities to transfer him to the place which is amongst the list of 25 choices which has been given through ‘SAMBHAV’ application. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner heavily relied upon the circular and submits that the transfer of this Petitioner has wrongly been made to IG-CTG, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. However, from the records it is evident that after the chain transfer of several police personnel, the Petitioner has represented before the competent authority, wherein he has categorically prayed as under: “अतः महोदय से अनुरोध है कि ঋाथी िा ˕ानाॠतरण ঋाथी Ȫारा भरे गए उपरोঢ 25 चॉइस म७ से किसी एि बटाकियन/िायाािय म७ िरने िी िृ पा 2025:JHHC:12578 2 िर७। इसिे अकतररঢ ঋाथी िो छȅीसगु तथा ঒ीनगर िे अकतदुगाम ঴ेআोॠ म७ भी ˕ानाॠतरण किए जाने पर ঋाथी िो किसी भी ঋिार िी सम˟ा नहीॠ होगी ।“ 4. The above representation clearly indicates that he was very much ready and requested that if he cannot be transferred in other place, then he may be transferred to Chhattisgarh or Srinagar and from record it appears that pursuant to his representation which is at Annexure-5 to this writ application, his representation was considered and his transfer order was amended and he was allotted Chhattisgarh. 5. This Court fails to understand that when the representation of this petitioner was accepted, he had again filed this writ application, which is nothing but only misuse of process of law. Moreover, it is also a settled proposition of service jurisprudence that unless and until, a transfer is punitive in nature; the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the same. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. However, no cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal