Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-6893-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2661 (27 April 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 6893 of 2006

Date of Decision: 05.05.2006

Ram Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

The prayer made in this writ petition is that the order of transfer dated 24.3.2006 (P-5) be cancelled, which has withdrawn the earlier order of transfer of the petitioner. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner has been working on the post of Social Education and Panchayat Officer with the respondent department and was posted at Fatehabad. On 2.7.2005, he was transferred to Chhachhrauli (P-1). After a period of about three weeks, the petitioner was transferred back to Fatehabad (P-2). He was again transferred on 20.9.2005 to Ellenabad (P-3), which order was again cancelled on 20.12.2005. The net result was that the petitioner whenever was transferred, keep coming back to Fatehabad. One Bhupender Pal Singh, who was posted at Fatehabad after the last transfer of the petitioner to Ellenabad, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 42 C.W.P. No. 6893 of 2006

of 2006, which was decided on 3.4.2006. The last transfer order posting the petitioner to Ellenabad from Fatehabad was cancelled and the petitioner was sent back to Ellenabad. The petitioner was impleaded as a party respondent in that petition. On the withdrawal of the last order transferring the petitioner from Ellenabad to Fatehabad, the petitioner goes back to Ellenabad. It is against the aforementioned order that the instant petition has been filed.

After hearing learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot remain at Fatehabad for all times to come. On the query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to give the exact date of his posting at Fatehabad before his transfer in July, 2005, however, he has stated that the petitioner might have been posted at Fatehabad in 2003. In any case the transfer orders are necessarily administrative orders, which does not call for any judicial review unless it is shown to be actuated by mala fide. The Government while transferring officers keep in view only public interest and nothing else. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition.

Dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

May 5, 2006 JUDGE

Pkapoor


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.