Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 369 (UTT)

B. S. Rajput v. State of Uttarakhand and others

2007-07-09

PRAFULLA C.PANT, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2007
Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Sri S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondents 1 and 2. Smt. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4. None for respondent no. 5. They are heard on admission. 2. Appellant B.S. Rajput has filed this Special Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 12-06-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 650 (S/S) of 2007. 3. Appellant B.S. Rajput had filed writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16-5-2007 (Annexure No.6) and allocation list dated 14-11-2006 (Annexure 10) by which the applicant is going to relieved for the State of Uttar Pradesh from State of Uttarakhand. ii. To pass any other suitable order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. To allow the petition with cost and direct the respondent no. 4 to include the name of the petitioner in final allocation list dated 14-11-2006 (Annexure 10);" 4. The petitioner (appellant herein) thus, was seeking quashing of the order dated 16-05-2007 (Annexure No.6), whereby the petitioner was relieved for his joining in the State of Uttar Pradesh; and the final allocation list / order dated 14-11-2006, whereby the petitioner was finally allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. Appellant B.S. Rajput, who was working as Junior Engineer in Regulated Area, Ram Nagar, District Nainital, admittedly, initially opted for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner (appellant herein) stands finally allocated to the State of U.P. by the Union of India vide Final Allocation List I order dated 14-11-2006. The State Government passed consequential order dated 16-05-2007 relieving the petitioner in pursuance of his final allocation for his joining in the State of U.P. The petitioner's grievance is that due weight was not given to his revised option, whereby he opted for the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) in the year 2003. 6. The learned Single Judge did not find any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 16-05-2007 and 14-11-2006. 6. The learned Single Judge did not find any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 16-05-2007 and 14-11-2006. The learned Single Judge, however, directed that if the Government of Uttarakhand is in requirement of the services of the petitioner, the competent authority may consider the application of the petitioner for mutual transfer and may take decision on the same within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 7. Sri S.S. Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the petitioner's case in proper perspective. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner initially opted for the State of U.P. The petitioner now stands finally allocated to the State of U.P. as per his option. Merely because the final allocation is not in accordance with his revised option, the same will not render his final allocation to the State of UP. illegal. The order dated 16-05-2007, relieving the petitioner for his joining in the State of U.P., is only a consequential order to his final allocation vide order dated 14-11-2006. 9. So far as the petitioner's stand about his mutual transfer is concerned, the Courts have no role to play in such matters and it is entirely for the State of U.P. and Uttarakhand to agree or not to agree for such mutual transfer. 10. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference in this Special Appeal. 11. The Special Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.