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


Suresh Prakash v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 32286 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10828 (3 July 2006)


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).


Court No.32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32286 of 2006

Suresh Prakash .....Petitioner


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


Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

In the instant writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the office orders dated 4.4.2006 and 1.6.2006, contained in Annexures 1 and 3 to the writ petition, respectively whereby the petitioner was directed to look after the work of U.P. Samaj Kalyan Corporation Limited of Ballia Unit only.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and its authorities arrayed as respondent Nos.2 to 7 to the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that during short interval of time, he has been subjected to frequent transfer and thus the order transferring him to Ballia cannot sustain. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that since no Assistant Engineer was posted in the Units of Mau and Azamgarh, therefore the petitioner was asked to look after all the three units of the Corporation, i.e., Ballia, Mau and Azamgarh. However, now the Assistant Engineers have been posted in Mau and Azamgarh Units, therefore, the petitioner has been entrusted the work of Ballia Unit only and as such it is wrong to contend that the petitioner is subjected to frequent transfer.

It appears that when the petitioner was posted at Azamgarh he was also entrusted to look after the work of Ballia and Mau too. However, vide order dated 4.2.2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) Sri Lal Sahab Malla and Sri Amar Singh have been posted in Azamgarh and Mau Units, and the petitioner has been asked to look after the work of Ballia Unit only, i.e. Headquarter at Ballia and, therefore, the contention of frequent transfer is bereft of merit. By the impugned order he has been relieved from the work of Mau and Azamgarh Units and entrusted the work of Ballia Unit only. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out that the impugned orders are in violation of any statutory provisions or executive instructions. It is also not disputed before us that the petitioner holds a transferable post and can be transferred by the Managing Director of the Corporation.  Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders of transfer.

The petition being without merit, is, accordingly dismissed.




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.