Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 517 (ALL)

Naseem Ahmad v. State of U. P. and others

2010-02-08

KASHI NATH PANDEY, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2010
Satya Foot Mehrotra and Kashi Nath Pandey, JJ. - The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the Transfer Order dated 18.01.2010 2. It appears that the petitioner is holding the post of Range Forest Officer. He was posted at Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, Mirazpur under the Chief Forest Conservator, Mentioring and Evaluation Unit, U.P., Lucknow. 3. By the order dated 18.01.2010 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition), the petitioner has been transferred as Assistant Maintenance Unit Officer (Planning and Execution), J.I.C.A. Project Obra Forest Division. Even though, the petitioner in the Prayer Clause of the Writ Petition, has prayed for quashing the said order dated 18.01.2010, but in paragraph 8 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has stated as under : "That the instant writ petition is being filed by the petitioner not to quash the impugned transfer order but only to stay the impugned transfer order for a limited period of 4 months so that Board examination of the daughter of the petitioner be completed without any disturbance in career of his daughter, specially in view of the facts as laid in Para 3 of the transfer policy issued on 6th June, 2009 for the year 2009-2010. A true copy of the transfer policy dated 6.6.2009 is being filed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition." 4. A Supplementary Affidavit, sworn on 5.2.2010, was filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner undertook that he would join at his transfer place at Obra Forest Division after 31.05.2010 in pursuance of the said order dated 18.1.2010. 5. In view of the averments made in the Writ Petition and the Supplementary Affidavit, the Court by its order dated 05.02.2010 granted time to Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. 6. Today, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Standing Counsel has stated that instructions have been received by him. As per the instructions, Sri Saxena States that the petitioner was relieved for joining at his transfer place on 2.2.2010 Sri Saxena further states that the petitioner joined at the transfer place in Obera Forest Division on 4.2.2010 and submitted his joining in writing. 7. As per the instructions, Sri Saxena States that the petitioner was relieved for joining at his transfer place on 2.2.2010 Sri Saxena further states that the petitioner joined at the transfer place in Obera Forest Division on 4.2.2010 and submitted his joining in writing. 7. It is further clarified by Sri Saxena that in fact, by the order dated 27.11.2008, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Range Forest Officer and was posted in the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit under the Chief Forest Conservator. U.P., Lucknow. It is on account of the said fact that the impugned Transfer Order contains reference to the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, Lucknow. 8. Sri K.N. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced before the Court a letter written by the petitioner on 3.2.2010. In the said letter, the petitioner has, inter alia, stated that in compliance with the Transfer Order, the petitioner was proceeding in the afternoon of 3.2.2010 for joining at the transfer place. 9. We have heard Sri K.N. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. Sri K. N. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is facing problem on account of the Board Examination of his daughter, he has made prayer for staying his Transfer Order for four months. The petitioner has also given an undertaking in this regard by filing Supplementary Affidavit. 11. Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Standing Counsel submits that as the petitioner has already been relieved on 2.2.2010 and he has joined at the transfer place on 4.2.2010 in respect of the petitioner. 12. Sr. K.N. Shukla learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not correct that the petitioner has joined at the transfer place on 4.2.2010. In fact he has joined at the transfer place on 8.2.2010 i.e. today. 13. Without going into the question as to whether the petitioner has joined at the transfer place on 4.2.2010 or 8.2.2010, the fact remains that the petitioner has already been relieved from his earlier place of posting. In the circumstances, there is no occasion for staying the transfer of the petitioner as directed by the order dated 18.01.2010. 14. 13. Without going into the question as to whether the petitioner has joined at the transfer place on 4.2.2010 or 8.2.2010, the fact remains that the petitioner has already been relieved from his earlier place of posting. In the circumstances, there is no occasion for staying the transfer of the petitioner as directed by the order dated 18.01.2010. 14. It is settled position that the High Court in exercise of its writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally does not interfere with the order of transfer unless such order is shown to have been issued mala fide or in violation of any Statutory Rule. In the present case, no mala fide has been shown in issuing the impugned Transfer Order dated 18.1.2010, nor has violation of any Statutory Rule been shown by the issuance of the said Order. 15. Therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned Transfer Order dated 18.1.2010. The Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.