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


Smt. Bindra Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru Secretary & Others - WRIT - A No. 10337 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3222 (26 February 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).


Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.2.2007 passed by Respondent no.2 whereby the petitioner has been transferred as Mukhya Sevika from district  Ghazipur to District Mau. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier a transfer order had been passed when the enqiury was pending against the petiitoner, which was challenged in writ petition no. 11206 of 2006. Since at that time the transfer order had been passed without the enquiry report having been submitted and the petitioner had been transferred from district Ghazipur to district  Shahjahanpur, which is in another zone and at a distance of 550 kms, this Court vide its Judgment and Order dated 2.3.2006 disposed of the said writ petition with the direction that the representation of the petitioner be considered, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks and for a period of six weeks, the petitioner was permitted to continue at Ghazipur and subsequent thereto it was provided that she would join at the place as may be determined by the decision on her representation. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 14.2.2007, it appears that the representation of the petitioner has been decided by the Government vide order dated 8.2.2007, copy of which has not been enclosed. The petitioner has now been transferred from district Ghazipur to district Mau, which is a neighbouring district and in the same zone. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the post of Mukhya Sevika is not a transferable post but no such ground has been taken in the writ petition. Even otherwise, from a perusal of the promotion order of the petitioner, which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner was initially promoted as Mukhya Sevika on 16.11.1998 and directed to join at district Jaunpur. Obviously thereafter the petitioner must have been transferred from district Jaunpur to district Ghazipur and as such it is clear that the post on which the petitioner is working, is a transferable post.

In the present set of circumstances, since the transfer order has been passed in compliance of the directions issued by this Court which was to decide the representation of the petitioner and after cancelling the earlier transfer order which was to a far off place and in a different zone, the petitioner has now been transferred to a neighbouring district, in my view, no interference is called for.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.

dt. 26.2.2007




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.