Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAGENDRA BAHADUR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nagendra Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1629 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 121 (3 January 2007)

 

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.32

Special Appeal No. 1629 of 2006

Nagendra Bahadur Singh .....Appellant

Versus

State of U.P.  and others .....Respondents.

Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court dated 4.12.2006 dismissing petitioner-appellant's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  65608 of 2006.

It appears that the petitioner-appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2006 transferring him from District Hospital Ballia to Community Health Centre, Dubhad in the district of the Ballia filed the aforesaid writ petition. The Hon'ble Single Judge, having heard learned counsel for the parties, found that the petitioner-appellant managed to get posting at District Hospital, Ballia again and again and in the absence of any pleading of mala fide and also non-impleadment of the persons against whom such allegations are sought to be made, dismissed the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant sought to argue before us that the petitioner-appellant within short time of one year was transferred four times and thus, this successive transfer within a short span of time cannot be approved. However the aforesaid submission is thoroughly misconceived, inasmuch as, it appears that in the same city the appellant was shifted from one hospital to another on a few occasions and he managed to come back every time to District Hospital, Ballia. On 24.5.2006 he was posted from District Hospital, Ballia to T.B. Clinic, Ballia pursuant whereto he was relieved on 30.5.2006 and joined at T.B. Clinic on the same day. The aforesaid order of transfer however was cancelled on 22.6.2006 and consequently the Senior District T.B. Officer, Ballia directed him to join back at District Hospital, Ballia by order dated 22.6.2006, pursuant whereto he joined at District Hospital, Ballia on 22.6.2006 itself. Some other persons who were also transferred by order dated 24.5.2006 challenged the order of transfer in Writ Petition No. 32486 of 2006 wherein an interim order was passed on 19.6.2006. Pursuant whereto, after obtaining legal opinion, the Chief Medical Officer passed order dated 5.7.2006 restoring the transfer order dated 24.5.2006 directing the appellant to work at T.B. Clinic, Ballia instead of District Hospital, Ballia. Consequently, the appellant joined at T.B. Clinic, Ballia on 21.7.2006. Thereafter by order dated 2.9.2006 the appellant was posted again at District Hospital, Ballia and therefore again restored to his old position. Now by means of the order dated 10.11.2006, impugned in the writ petition, he has been transferred and posted at Primary Health Centre, Dubhad, Ballia. The aforesaid facts are self speaking showing that this is the only effective order of transfer made after long time whereby the appellant has been shifted from District Hospital, Ballia to another place namely, Primary Health Centre, Dubhad, Ballia and earlier he remained in the same city and virtually in the same hospital except for a few days. In the circumstances, as observed above, therefore, it cannot be said that this is a case of frequent transfer of the appellant. It is not disputed that the order of transfer impugned in the writ petition is neither contrary to any statutory provision or service rule nor is otherwise vitiated on account of any mala fide etc. Therefore, we do not find any fault in the judgment under appeal dismissing the writ petition.

This special appeal therefore lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Dated: 3.1.2007

SKM


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.