Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARUN KUMAR TYAGI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Arun Kumar Tyagi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 65312 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20523 (5 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65312 of 2006

Arun Kumar Tyagi

  Vs.

State of U.P.  and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner joined as Sub-Inspector of Police at Moradabad in January, 2005 and posted as Station Officer at police station Kundarki. On 12.11.2006, petitioner has been transferred from Moradabad to Inter State Border Force.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that power of transfer, in the present case, has been colourably exercised, as  in Nagar Panchayat elections candidate of  Samajvadi Party was defeated, and further it has been contended that petitioner shall suffer a lot of inconvenience on account of the said transfer order.

On such arguments being advanced instructions were sought from learned Standing Counsel, and the instructions have been received, a copy thereof has also been passed on to the Court and perused by learned counsel for the petitioner also. Thereafter matter has been heard and is being decided, with the consent of the parties.

The instructions in question reveal that petitioner has been transferred from Moradabad to Inter State Border Force in administrative exigency, keeping in view the ability of petitioner.

In the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar 1995 (71) F.L.R. 1011, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a government servant holding transferable post has no vested right  to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to other. Transfer order issued by the competent authority do not violate any legal right. Even if transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions  or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead the affected party  should approach the higher authorities in the Department.

In the case of State of U.P. vs. Goverdhan Lal; 2004 (101) FLR 586 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (Act or Rule)  or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot be lightly interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfer or containing transfer policies at the best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities  for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments.

Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Union of India vs. Janardan Debanath, 2004 (4) SCC 245 has taken the view that no government servant has any legal right to be posted  for ever at one particular place, and such transfer order shall not be interfered with unless the power of transfer has been exercised mala fide or statutory Rules have been violated. Apart from this when there is prima satisfaction on contemporary reports being received about the conduct of incumbent, instead of taking recourse to regular disciplinary proceeding, incumbent can be transferred.

On the touchstone of the judgments cited above, claim of petitioner is adjudged. The order of transfer has been passed by competent authority in administrative exigency. Plea of mala fide has been mentioned only  for the purposes of the case, with no material to support the same and there is no violation of any statutory Rules, as such no interference is warranted. Writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.    

05.12.2006

SRY


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.