Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 77 (JK)

Mohd. Sidiq Sofi v. State Of J. &K.

2000-04-24

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2000
1. Petitioner is a Master in education department of the State Government. He is working in Boys Middle School Lar, Zone Tulmul, District Srinagar since 23-08-1996. Petitioner has been transferred vide Order No. 591 DSEK of 200 dated 29-03-2000 and directed to report to Chief Education Officer, Budgam for further posting (Annexure D & E). Petitioner is questioning this order of transfer on the ground that vide earlier order Annexure-C, petitioner was not touched, but by the impugned order passed subsequently, he was shown transferred to Budgam. No reason is given to rescind the earlier order dated: 03-03-2000 (Annexure-C) and passing of subsequent order dated 29-03-2000 (Annexure-D), petitioner admits that he is working at his present posting for last over three years within his home district, but as he had not given the option for transfer to Budgam yet he has been transferred to Budgam. Therefore, the Education Department has violated its own circular. Petitioner has not been suitably adjusted and rescinding of the earlier order is not in the interest of administration. 2. Obviously, petitioner™s transfer from District Srinagar to adjoining district Budgam has matured, as he has been serving at his present place of posting Middle School Lar, for last over three years. The order Annexure-D itself shows that the earlier order of transfer Annexure-C was rescinded and modified on the representations of various teachers on complaint of their juniors having been left untouched, while posting them in the frontier district of Kupwara. The issuances of transfer orders is a routine matter and an incident of service. Nothing special need to be read in the order in the frame of and pleas set out in the petition. Mere use of platives in petition that the order is passed on ˜ulterior consideration, in colorable exercise of powers™, actuated with malice, will not suffice, as no legal pleas thereto supported by material and documents are placed before the court. Mr. Dar, when confronted with this position, submits that the petitioner is nearing retirement and has acute and grievous family problem to go to a far of place. The hardships of the petitioner may be there, but the personal problems cannot displace the administrative exigencies of requiring petitioner to serve at different places. In terms of service conditions, the transfer is incident of service. The hardships of the petitioner may be there, but the personal problems cannot displace the administrative exigencies of requiring petitioner to serve at different places. In terms of service conditions, the transfer is incident of service. The petitioner is free to place his case before the competent authority and seek accommodation with respect to adjustment or posting in the transferee district, but cannot question inter district transfer of the petitioner, as in this case. In B. Varadha Rao™s case (AIR 1986 SC: 1955), the Apex Court observed:- .....It is well understood that transfer of a Government servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a Government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of Government service and no Government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is a specified, non-transferable post.....� In State of Punjab and ors Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt, (AIR 1993 SC 2486) it was further observed:- ......It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a matter where on the face of it, no injustice was caused.� In result, the petition is dismissed in limine with above observations.