Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Satendra Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 33251 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13231 (31 July 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).


Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33251 of 2007

Satendra Kumar Srivastava


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V. K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court, questioning the validity of transfer order, transferring petitioner from Block Chakia to Naugarh.

Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that District Panchayat Raj Officer has got no right to transfer the petitioner and right to transfer vests with the District Magistrate, as such order of transfer is totally without jurisdiction.

Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand contended that Appointing Authority of petitioner under U.P. Panchayat Sewak Sewa Niyamawali, 1978 is the District Panchayat Raj Officer, as such District Panchayat Raj Officer has got full authority to effectuate transfer of petitioner.

After respective arguments have been advanced, provisions of  U.P. Panchayat Sewak Sewa Niyamawali, 1978 have been perused. Rule 3 (a) thereof clearly provides that appointing authority means 'District Panchayat Raj Officer'. This fact has not been disputed that appointing authority is the  District Panchayat Raj Officer of the concerned district. It has been sought to be contended that by means of Government Orders dated 01.07.1999 and 06.03.2002, it is District Magistrate only, who has authority to pass order of transfer. Said Government Orders are of no consequence, inasmuch in consonance with the provisions introduced by way of 73rd Amendment in the Constitution, scheme of Government Order dated 01.07.1999 has been modified  by  Government Order dated 20.07.2004 and by means of the same in respect of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari entire authority has been entrusted to District Panchayat Raj Officer. Thus, under the relevant Service Rules and the Government order dated 20.07.2004, authority of District Panchayat Raj Officer to transfer has been restored, as such, there is no infirmity in the decision which has been taken by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, transferring the petitioner in administrative exigency.

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.  




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


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 |

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