Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sunil Kumar Mishra v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 53253 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17186 (30 October 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 AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53253 of 2007

Sunil Kumar Mishra

Vs.

State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri V.P. Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the transfer order dated 10.10.2007 passed by Inspector General of Registration, U.P., Allahabad transferring the petitioner and some others in public interest, the petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the said order on the ground that the same is a mid-session transfer affecting the study of the children and the petitioner was appointed in Bansi District Siddharth Nagar in June 2006 itself and now by means of the impugned order of transfer is being shifted again within a span of less than one and half years to Chandauli Sadar.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of transfer. It is not disputed that the petitioner holds a transferable post and can be transferred from one place to another. It is not disputed that I.G. Registration is the competent authority to transfer him in public interest and the impugned order of transfer has been passed in public interest. Transfer is an exigency of service and an employee should be posted where and when and for what reason is a matter to be considered by the departmental authorities and it is not for the Court to interfere in such matters unless it is shown that the order of transfer is violative of statutory rules or has been passed without jurisdiction or is vitiated on account of mala fide. A Division Bench of this Court after considering various aspects of the matter in Writ Petition No. 243 (S/B) of 2007 Uma Shanker Rai Vs. Vs. State of U.P & others has observed as under :

"In view of the aforesaid well settled principles governing the matter of transfer, the consistent opinion of the Courts in the matter of judicial review of the transfer orders has been that the order of transfer is open for judicial review on very limited grounds; namely if it is in violation of any statutory provisions or vitiated by mala-fides or passed by an authority holding no jurisdiction. Since the power of transfer in the hierarchical system of the Government can be exercised at different level, sometimes for the guidance of the authorities for exercise of power of transfer, certain executive instructions containing guidelines are issued by the Government so that they may be taken into account while exercising power of transfer. At time orders of transfer have been assailed before the Court on the ground that they have been issued in breach of the conditions of such guidelines or in transgression of administrative guidelines. Looking to the very nature of the power of transfer, the Courts have not allowed interference in the order of transfer on the ground of violation of administrative guidelines and still judicial review on such ground is impermissible unless it falls within the realm of malice in law. The reason behind appears to be that the order of transfer does not violate any right of the employee and the employer has no corresponding obligation to explain his employees as to why he is being transferred from one place to another."

In view thereof, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of transfer.

However, so far as the personal hardship of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner may make a representation before the competent authority and in case, any such representation is made by the petitioner, we hope and trust that the competent authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate order within a reasonable time. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issued with respect to the grievance of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 30.10.2007

PS


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.