The Bombay High Court upheld the State’s authority to issue the transfers — Rejected the concept of deemed deputation — Found the transfers were valid beyond the election period.

The Court ruled that the transfer orders were made in compliance with binding ECI directives and justified under Section 22-N(2) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — Tribunal’s reliance on the Karnataka High Court’s decision was misplaced — Orders were not limited to the election period and did not amount to deputation. (Paras: 8, 12, 14)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India — Article 324 — Superintendence, direction, and control of elections vested in Election Commission of India.

2. Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — Section 22-N(2) — Powers for effecting transfers in public interest and administrative exigencies.

3. Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 28-A — Provisions relating to the control of staff for elections.

Subjects: Mid-Term Transfers — Public Interest — Administrative Exigencies — Deemed Deputation — Election Commission Directives — Tribunal’s Decision Overruled — Maharashtra Police Act — State’s Power to Transfer

Nature of Litigation: The State of Maharashtra challenged the common judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which set aside mid-term transfer orders issued for police personnel.

Relief Sought: a) Quashing of the Tribunal’s judgment dated 19/07/2024. b) Upholding the transfer orders dated 26/02/2024.

Reason for Filing the Case: The Tribunal ruled that the transfer orders issued in compliance with the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) directives were temporary and ceased to have effect after the conclusion of elections.

Previous Decisions: The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal held the transfers were “deemed deputation” and lost efficacy after the general elections concluded.

Issues: a) Whether the transfer orders were justified under Section 22-N(2) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. b) Whether the transfers were temporary and ceased to operate after the elections. c) Whether the Tribunal erred by considering the transfers as “deemed deputation.”

Submissions/Arguments: Petitioner (State of Maharashtra): a) Transfer orders were issued in public interest and administrative exigencies, in line with ECI directives. b) The orders did not limit their effect to the duration of the elections. c) Referenced previous judgments like Mahendra Eknath Mali v/s State of Maharashtra, 2018 (5) Mh.L.J. 307, affirming similar transfer orders.

Respondents (Police Personnel): a) Transfers were only for the election period and thus ceased to apply after elections concluded. b) Relied on Karnataka High Court’s judgment in Election Commission of India v/s State of Karnataka, 2013 CJ (Kar) 595. c) Claimed the transfers violated their normal tenure protections under Section 22-N(2).