Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAILASH RAM @ KAILASH PRASAD versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kailash Ram @ Kailash Prasad v. Additional Director And Others - WRIT - A No. 32486 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12648 (1 August 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32486 of 2006

Kailash Ram @ Kailash Prasad ......Petitioner

Versus

Additional Director, Medical Health & Family

Welfare, Azamgarh & others         .....Respondents.

****

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

We have heard Sri J.K.Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

In the instant writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh dated 1.6.2006 whereby the earlier order of transfer dated 24.5.2006 has been cancelled pursuant to the order of the Director General (respondent no.4) dated 29.5.2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since on account of earlier order of transfer, the petitioner already submitted his joining to the transferred place and, therefore, the Additional Director (respondent no.1) has no authority to cancel the same.

We do not find any force in the submission for the reason that this controversy is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow and others Versus Natthi Lal, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1128 wherein it has been held that even if the order of transfer is implemented and the transferred employee pursuant thereto has joined the post, the same can be cancelled, revoked or modified. In para-17 of the judgment the Full Bench held as under:

"We hold that there is no bar or restriction to the modification, revocation or cancellation of an order of transfer even after it has been implemented..."

In the case in hand it appears that on account of certain complaints alleging that the order of transfer was passed for some extraneous consideration, the Director General (respondent no.4) directed the Additional Director (respondent no.1) to cancel the same and consequently respondent no.1 cancelled the order of transfer dated 24.5.2006.

Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Dated:1.8.2006

SKM


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.