High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vikas Kumar @ Sonu v. State Of U.P. & Another - WRIT - A No. 41410 of 2006  RD-AH 12852 (2 August 2006)
Court No. 52
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40145 of 2006
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of transfer order dated 17.05.2006, transferring the petitioner from Vikas Khand Badrao to Vikas Khand Dohrighat.
Contention of petitioner is that he was performing and discharging duties at Vikas Khand Badrao. It has been contended that on 16.05.2006 a letter was written by Vidyut Prakash Yadav for transferring the petitioner. It has been contended by the petitioner that on next day i. e. 17.05.2006, petitioner was transfered to Block Dohrighat from Block Badrao. Thereafter on 12.06.2006 some modification has been made in the transfer order dated 17.05.2006 on 01.07.2006 and the said transfer order has been stayed up to 31.07.2006. At this juncture, petitioner has approached this Court.
Sri K.N. Yadav, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case, power of transfer has not been exercised bona fide, and the order of transfer has been passed on the instructions of politician, as such transfer order is liable to be quashed.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that petitioner holds transferable post and the alleged transfer is within the district, as such no interference be made.
After respective arguments have been advanced, it is revealed that the letter which has been filed for the purpose of showing that transfer order is based on political consideration on the face of it, appears to be procured letter, inasmuch a bare perusal of the aforementioned letter reflects that blank letter pad of the concerned politician had been sought to be procured, and thereafter contents have been written thereon, and signature of the politician is far away from the contents, and even the date has been sought to be corrected therein. Prima facie credibility of the aforesaid letter is doubtful. In normal course, this Court would have directed to make inquiry in respect of the purported procurement of the aforementioned letter, but here, as the transfer is within the district, no interference is being made with the impugned order of transfer. One thing is very peculiar that at one one hand, it is being contended by the petitioner that on account of political pressure transfer was made, and on the other hand, the same authority who has passed the transfer order is obliging the petitioner by staying the transfer order up till July 31, 2001.
Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court refused to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. Writ petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.