Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. BAJRANGI LAL VERMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. Bajrangi Lal Verma v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 59322 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18571 (3 December 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. 59322 of 2007

Dr. Bajrangi Lal Verma ....Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. & others ....Respondents

*********

Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

In the instant writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Special Secretary Medical and Health (respondent no.2) dated 30.6.2007 transferring him from Community Health Centre, Mariyahoon to District Hospital Jaunpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Additional Director, Medical, Health and Family Welfare (respondent no.5 ) has recommended to the Special Secretary (respondent no.2) to permit the petitioner to remain at the present place of posting, i.e., Community Health Centre, Mariyahoon as except him there is no Doctor in the Community Health Centre for doing Leproscopy and hence family planning work would suffer. It is also contended that there is no administrative exigency; hence the order of transfer is not justified.

We do not find any force in the submission for the reason that admittedly the petitioner is a child specialist and does not have any qualification for leproscopic. Despite our repeated query the petitioner's counsel could not produce nor point out any material on record wherefrom it could be inferred that the petitioner was a qualified Doctor to perform leproscopy.

Besides that no person or Government Servant has a vested right to remain posted at a particular place and, therefore, this Court normally does not interfere with the transfer unless it is found that the same is passed in violation of any mandatory rules. Transfer is an incident of service and the petitioner holding transferable post can be transferred from one place to another and there can be no exception to it. It is not the case of petitioner that the order of transfer has been made for any extraneous consideration or in violation of any statutory provision and thus, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the order of transfer.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

Dated: 3.12.2007

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.