Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1491 (ALL)

MUNNA LAL SRIVAS v. STATE OF U P

2003-07-09

ONKARESHWAR BHATT, S.P.SRIVASTAVA

body2003
S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The petitioner appellant claims that on account of his holding post of District Secretary of Uttar Pradesh Sarkar Stenograpers Mahasangh District Branch Lalitpur, which post he was to continue to hold till 24-11-2004 in the normal course, it was not open to the Director, Pravidhik Shiksha, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur to transfer him to the District Mirzapur in view of the protection extended to such an office bearer as provided in the Government Order dated 9-9-1993. 3. In the present case it is not disputed that while transferring the petitioner from Lalitpur to Mirzapur the Director had indicated that the transfer was being ordered on administrative grounds. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that in view of the Government Order providing protection to the office bearers as indicated hereinabove, even in the case where the transfer was being effected on administrative grounds, it had to be ensured that the prior consent of the District Magistrate in the matter relating to the district level be obtained but in the present case no such permission had been obtained. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, states that in the writ petition, no such assertion had been made that the required consent had not been obtained. The submission about the absence of consent according to him is based on the fact that in the impugned order of transfer there was no mention about it. In such cases, it may be observed that there is a presumption available in law about the regularity of the official acts. There is nothing on the record, which could be taken to rebut such a presumption while passing the impugned order of transfer. 6. In view of the fact that the impugned order of transfer had been passed by an authority which was much higher in rank as compared to the District Magistrate, the question of the said order being vitiated on account of the absence of prior approval of the authority lower in rank cannot arise. 7. No justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. This appeal is devoid of merit which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 7. No justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. This appeal is devoid of merit which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant at this stage points out that the petitioner appellant has filed a representation challenging the order of his transfer which is pending consideration before the Principal Secretary, Technical Education, U. P. Government, Lucknow. In this connection, it is observed that the aforesaid representation may be disposed of on its own merit. The dismissal of the special appeal will not come in the way of disposal of the said representation. Appeal dismissed. .