High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kanhaiya Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru' Its Secy. Women & Child Dev. Deptt.& Ors - WRIT - A No. 4115 of 2007  RD-AH 1471 (29 January 2007)
Court No. 38
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4115 of 2007
State of U.P and others
Petitioner has been performing and discharging duty as Child Development Project Officer. Petitioner has been transferred from block Chatra, Sonebhadra to block Chopan, Sonebhadra. Petitioner has contended that after being transferred he joined at Chopan, Sonebhadra. Petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60380 of 2006 questioning the validity of the order. Said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court on 06.11.2006 by giving liberty to represent the matter. Thereafter representation in question has been decided. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Sri Krishna Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that there is no objective consideration qua the grievance which has been sought to be raised by the petitioner, as such impugned order in question is liable to be quashed.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that petitioner hold transferable post and arrangement has been made within the district and valid reason has been assigned as such no interference is warranted.
After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner functioned at Chopan, Sonebhadra since 28.08.1999 to 06.09.2001 and thereafter petitioner was posted at Chatra, Sonebhadra with effect from 07.09.2001 to 21.07.2006. Suresh Chandra Dubey has been transferred in District Sonebhadra in the year 2003 and thereafter on 30.06.2006 Suresh Chandra Dubey has been transferred from Chopan, Sonebhadra to Chatra, Sonebhadra and petitioner, Kanhaiya Lal has been transferred from Chatra Sonebhadra to Chopan Sonebharda. Thereafter Chief Development Officer, Sonebhadra has made recommendation and thereafter matter was reconsidered and order dated 21.09.2006 has been passed. Cogent reasons have been given while rejecting the representation of the petitioner, and as petitioner holds transferable post and transfer has been made by competent authority and there is no violation of any statutory rule, there is hardly any scope of interference in a matter like this where arrangement has been made within the District.
Consequently, present writ petition lacks substance and same is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.