High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Hasnain Khan v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 9521 of 2004  RD-AH 130 (10 March 2004)
Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 9521 of 2004
Hasnain Khan Versus State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 28.2.2004 ( Annexure-1A to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.3 whereby he was transferred from Pilibhit to Vigilance Department Lucknow.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that after denotification of the Chunav Achar Sanhita no order of transfer can be passed, hence the orders dated 20.2.2004 and 28.2.2004 are liable to be quashed. He further submits that due to malafide intention of respondent no.4 the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 28.2.2004 passed by respondent no.3 from Civil Police to Vigilance Department.
The Standing counsel submits that the Election Commission has imposed a total ban on the transfer of officials connected with the conduct of elections following the enforcement of the model code of conduct with the announcement of poll schedule. The ban on transfers covers those cases in which transfer order has not been implemented till the imposition of model code of conduct. The Commission has further directed that the State Government should refrain from making transfers of senior officers who have a role in the management of elections in the State.
The petitioner is not connected with the management of elections and is not the status of Chief Electoral Officer and additional, Joint and Deputy CEOs, Divisional Commissioners, District Election Officers, ROs, AROs and Revenue Officers, Officers of the Police Department like range IGs and DIGs, SSPs and SPs, Sub Divisional level Police Officers like DSPs and other Police officers who are deputed to the Commission under Section 28A of the representation of the People Act, 1951.
It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that the services of the petitioner are transferable. The transfer is an exigency of service. No malafide could be shown by the counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.