Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1104 (ALL)

Mohd. Sohaib v. State of U. P. and Others

2012-05-09

ANIL KUMAR

body2012
Anil Kumar, J.;— Heard Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of transfer dated 30.4.2012 (Annexure No.3) passed by opposite party no.3/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Rae-Bareli by which he has been transferred from Tehsil Sadar to Tehsil Lalganj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of transfer on the ground that earlier by order dated 31.5.2010 (Annexure No.2) passed by opposite party no.5/Tehsildar Sadar, Rae-Bareli petitioner was transferred from Gadri Mutwali to Kodras Bujurg in Tehsil Sadar, District-Rae-Bareli however only after a span of two years the impugned order dated 30.4.2012 has been passed, as such, the same is in contravention to Government policy as well as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice, liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel counsel for parties and perused the record. 5. The law is well settled that transfer being exigency of service can be effected by the employer concerned in accordance with administrative exigency, in the interest of administration and public interest at any point of time and that cannot be monitored and guided by this Court unless it may be shown that transfer order is vitiated on account of the contravention of the statute , or lacks jurisdiction or mala fide. 6. In the present case as argued by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order of transfer is in violation of transfer policy is not correct because in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas , AIR 1993 SC 2444 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "The said guideline, however, does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right." 7. The said view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India another (1993) 1 SCC 148 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- "It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the Oder of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Union of India another (1993) 1 SCC 148 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- "It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the Oder of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer." 8. In the case of Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta, 1992 (1) SCC 306 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "The said observations in fact tend to negative the respondent's contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the Respondent's contention that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal , the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons therefor. It does not also say that the Court or Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any of the administrative instructions/ guidelines are not followed, much less can be characterized as mala fide for that reason. To reiterate , the oder of transfer can be question in a Court or Tribunal only where it is passed mala fide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions." 9. The said view was again reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sri Bhagwan and another, AIR 2001 SC 3309 . 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.4.2012 (Annexure No.3) passed by opposite party no.3 by which the petitioner has been transferred. 11. Sri Bhagwan and another, AIR 2001 SC 3309 . 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.4.2012 (Annexure No.3) passed by opposite party no.3 by which the petitioner has been transferred. 11. However, looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that on 31.5.2010 (Annexure No.2), the petitioner has been transferred from Para to Kelauly, in Tehsil Sadar, District-Rae-Bareli and within span of two years again on 30.4.2012, the impugned order has been passed by which he has been transferred from Tehsil Sadar to Tehsil Lalganj, District Rae-bareli, as such, in the interest of justice, petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation to O.P. No. 2/ District Magistrate, Rae-bareli within two weeks from today in respect to his grievances which he has raised in the present writ petition annexing all relevant documents and materials in support of his case along with self addressed stamped envelope and after receiving the same O.P. No.2 shall consider and dispose of the same by way of speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a further period of two weeks and communicate to him. 12. For a period of four weeks or till the disposal of the representation by the competent authority whichever is earlier no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner in the matter in question. 13. With the above observations, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. _