Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. NALINI MALIK versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Nalini Malik v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 17903 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6277 (5 April 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

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

The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds on Class III post in the year 2004. By an order dated 15.6.2006, the petitioner, alongwith 15 other persons, had been transferred out of Baghpat. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 55580 of 2006. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 9.10.2006 wherein, it was observed that "transfer and posting are within the domain of the authority concerned and it is for the authority to see as to where incumbent should be placed and where his service could be best utilized". However, considering that the petitioner was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, the petitioner was permitted to make a representation against her transfer and it was also observed that till the said representation was decided, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.

By means of the impugned order dated 22.12.2006, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected primarily on the ground that there were more persons working in the division than the sanctioned posts. It is not denied that the petitioner is working on a transferable post. Transfer is an exigency of service. The ground of the petitioner being in the family way,  which was there at the time of filing of the earlier writ petition, does not exist any longer. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the order dated 22.12.2006, which has been impugned in this writ petition.

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

 

Dt/-5.4.2007

p.s.

w.p.17903.07


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.