Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 497 (ALL)

S. K. Chaddha v. State of U. P

1990-05-07

K.P.SINGH, R.A.SHARMA

body1990
JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - The petitioner is a member of Provincial Medical Service and he joined his duties as Medical Officer at Allahabad 17.12.1975. Since then till 29.5.1985 the petitioner remained posted as Medical Officer in the Allahabad Division. On 30.5.1985 the petitioner joined his duties as Medical Officer at Pratapgarh and remained there till 19.9.1986. On 20.9.1986 he joined his duties as Medical Officer, Post-natal Centre, Mau Aima, Allahabad and is working there. It appears that on 16.6.1989 the petitioner has been transferred to district Hamirpur in Jhansi Division, Annexure attached with the writ petition. 2. Aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 16.6.1989 contained in Annexures as well as the rejection of the petitioner's representation dated 24.10.1989, contained in Annexure 8', the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and has prayed for quashing the aforesaid annexures and has also prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the petitioner's working as Medical Officer, Post-natal Centre Mau Aima, Allahabad. 3. The main grievances of the petitioner before us are that the opposite parties have misconstrued the G.O. dated 5.6.1989 contained in Annexure 3' attached with the writ petition and that the opposite parties have acted arbitrary in transferring the petitioner and rejecting his representation. According to the petitioner the action of the opposite parties is unfair and discriminatory as well as violative of the mandates contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, therefore, the Annexure 1 and 8 should be quashed. 4. Learned Counsel for the the opposite parties has tried to submit that the action of the opposite parties is in consonance with G.O. dated 5.6.1989 and it is not a fit case where this court should interfere with the order of transfer against the petitioner in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Relevant allegations have been made by the petitioner in paragraphs 15 to 35 of the writ petition. According to the petitioner he has not completed 12 years service in Allahabad Division. 5. Relevant allegations have been made by the petitioner in paragraphs 15 to 35 of the writ petition. According to the petitioner he has not completed 12 years service in Allahabad Division. According to G.O. dated 5.6.1989 his transfer to Hamirpur district in Jhansi Division is patently erroneous, he has emphasised that the doctors similarly situated as the petitioner have not been transferred from the district of Allahabad and the action of the opposite parties in transferring the petitioner is against the mandates of Article 14 and 36 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioner should not be transferred and the relief claimed in the writ petition should be granted. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has invited our attention to paragraphs 8, 10, to 14 of the counter-affidavit and has submitted that the order of transfer against the petitioner is wholly in consonance with the Government order and that the petitioner can not succeed 'in' the present writ petition. According to him it is wrong to contend that the order in any manner is illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory against the petitioner. 7. In the rejoinder-affidavit the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Annexure 6' attached with the writ petition and has contended that through Annexure 8' the petitioner's representation has been rejected illegally and arbitrarily. 8. We have considered the contention raised on behalf of the parties. In paragraph 33 of the writ petition the petitioner has alleged that Dr. Nisar Ahmad was also transferred through the order dated 16.6.89 but his transfer has been stayed through the order dated 26.8.1989 contained in Annexure 9 with the writ petition. This paragraph has been replied through paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit which reads as below : "That the contents of paragraph 30 to 36 of the writ petition are misconceived and are not admitted. The date given in paragraph under reply is of no consequence. In view of the facts already stated that Pratapgarh has come within Division of Allahabad and the period of 12 years have been completed by the petitioner in this Division and the transfer has been made in accordance with G.O. As such in view of the facts stated above, there is no question of quashing the impugned order or staying the same." 9. In our opinion the case of the petitioner is quite similar to the ease of Dr. In our opinion the case of the petitioner is quite similar to the ease of Dr. Nisar Ahmad, yet the opposite parties have acted illegally and arbitrarily in not granting the relief claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the action is discriminatory and their reply contained in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit is incorrect. The opposite parties in the present writ petition are the Slate of U.P. and its Officers. In a democratic country it is expected that the Slate and its officers must observe the rule of fair play and responsibleness in their action. Their action need not smack of arbitrariness and discrimination. labour opinion, the opposite parties have not dealt with the claim of the petitioner fairly and reason by and their action appear somewhat discriminatory against the petitioner. We see no reason why the petitioner should not be put at per with Dr. Nisar Ahmad whose case is quite similar to the case of the petitioner. On the allegations contained in paragraph 30 to 35 of the writ petition and the reply contained in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner has not been fairly and reasonably dealt with by the opposite parties and that the opposite parties have favored Dr. Sharad Kumar, Dr. Nisar Ahmad, Dr, P.L. Nigam, Dr. B.B. Singh, Dr. S.P. Singh, Dr. L.K. Bhargava, Dr. S.P. Sharma, Dr. S.K. Mishra, Dr. V.K. Gupta, Dr. Sunil Verina and Dr. A.K. Nigam,. We except that the opposite parties shall give fair deal to the petitioner hereafter, the order of transfer contained in Annexure (1) and the rejection of the petitioners representation contained in Annexure 8' with the writ petition deserve to be quashed. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order of transfer dated 16.6.89 Annexure and the rejection of the petitioner's representation dated 24.10.1989 contained in Annexure 8' are hereby quashed and the respondent are directed not to interfere in the petitioner's working as Medical Officer, Post-natal Centre, May Aima, Allahabad if the petitioner is continuing in service at that place till today. The claim, of the petitioner should be fairly and reasonably dealt with by the opposite parties strictly in accordance with rule of and mandates enshrined in Article 14 to 16 of the Constitution. 11. There would be no order as to costs. 12. The claim, of the petitioner should be fairly and reasonably dealt with by the opposite parties strictly in accordance with rule of and mandates enshrined in Article 14 to 16 of the Constitution. 11. There would be no order as to costs. 12. Judgment pronounced in open court today under Chapter VII Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court.