Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAHABEER SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mahabeer Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 69104 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21398 (19 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. 69104 of 2006

Mahabeer Singh    Vs.    State of U.P.  and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court, questioning the validity of order dated 08.12.2006 transferring him from Aligarh to  Etah, in public interest.

Brief background of the case is that on 20.07.2006, an incident took place in between Satya Prakash Sharma, Sinchpal, and the petitioner. Qua the said incident inquiry was conducted. The authorities in their wisdom instead of taking any disciplinary action against both the incumbents, in public interest, have chosen to transfer Satya Prakash Sharm to Bulandshahr and the petitioner to  Etah. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that, in the present case, on pressure being exerted, petitioner has been transferred and there was no administrative exigency, whatsoever, involved, as such transfer order is bad in the eyes of law.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that in administrative exigency and in public interest, decision has been taken to transfer, and no interference is warranted by this Court.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual position which emerges, is to the effect that on 20.07.2006 at 5.30.P.M. in between petitioner and Satya Prakash Sharma altercation took place, and the authorities were apprised  of the same, and pressure was being exerted on behalf of the members of the association for taking action against petitioner, and in this connection gherao etc. was also done. Demand was also made for taking action against the concerned Sinchpal. The authorities in their wisdom, in view of the resentment of the members of the association and in view of the conduct of petitioner as well as Satya Prakash Sharma, decided to  accord placement to both of them as stated above.

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.

In these circumstances and in this background, as material was there, therefore, the authorities in their wisdom instead of taking disciplinary action against petitioner, have chosen to transfer him, in administrative exigency, as such no interference is warranted. Writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.    

19.12.2006

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.