High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Prabhu Nath Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 68940 of 2006  RD-AH 1278 (18 January 2006)
Court No. 38
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68940 of 2006
Prabhu Nath Singh
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J
petitioner has been performing and discharging duties as Clerk. Petitioner submits that he was transferred on 17.06.2006 from District Headquarter, Mau to block Ratanpua, Mau. Pursuant to the said order he joined at the transferred place. Petitioner has contended that on 30.11.2006 petitioner has been transferred from Block Ratanpura, Mau to Block Pardaha, district Mau. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case only few months back petitioner was transferred and said transfer was complied with and thereafter for no rhyme or reason ignoring the fact that he is elected office bearer petitioner has been transferred as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that in administrative exigency petitioner has been transferred as such no interference is warranted.
After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to the effect that on 17.06.2006 petitioner has been transferred from District Headquarter, Mau to Block Ratanpua, Mau and thereafter petitioner joined at Block Ratanpura district Mau. Petitioner submits that on 26.06.2006 election of office bearers has been held wherein petitioner contested and has been elected as President. Petitioner has been transferred on 30.11.2006 from Block Ratanpua, Mau to Block Pardaha, Mau. Transfer of petitioner has been made in administrative exigency and this is not at all a case of isolated decision taken qua the petitioner rather two other incumbents also similar decision has been taken to transfer. Transfer and posting are within the domain of the authority concerned and it is for the authorities concerned to see as to where administrative exigency is much more fulfilled according to placement of an incumbents and not for this Court.
Consequently in terms of settled preposition of law of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1995 (71) FLR 1011 (SC); State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal reported in 2004 (101) FLR 586 (SC) and in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another reported in [(2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 245, no interference is required to be made by this Court.
Much stress has also been placed by the petitioner that as petitioner has been elected as President, as such transfer is in violation of Government Order dated 09.09.1983. The averments which have been mentioned are totally vague and evasive averments, as petitioner has not at all given details as to on what level election has been held i.e. as to whether it was Unit level election or District level election. Petitioner has not at all disclosed as to whether he was elected as President for entire District or for a Unit. Averments being vague and evasive do not inspire any confidence, whatsoever as such no benefit can be extended to the petitioner.
Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.