Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 239 (UTT)

Suresh Chandra Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-05-02

LOK PAL SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Lok Pal Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Vide order dated 03.04.2018, non-bailable warrant was issued against respondent no.5. In compliance thereof, Sub Inspector Sri Godhan Singh, P.S. Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar has produced respondent no.5 Jagat Singh Garbyal before this Court today. 3. It is submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General that on the date when the Court issued Non-Bailable Warrant against respondent no.5, respondent no.5 had come in the court, but slightly late. It is also submitted that respondent no.5 is having hearing problem and he never intended to disobey the orders of the Court and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail. Hence, a prayer has been made to recall the non-bailable warrant issued against respondent no.5. 4. In view of the above, Non-bailable warrant issued against respondent no.5 is hereby recalled. Sub Inspector Sri Godhan Singh is directed to forthwith release respondent no.5 from here. 5. The case of the petitioner is that by the impugned transfer order dated 27.11.2017, petitioner has been transferred from Government Inter College Sitarganj Udham Singh Nagar–B to Government Inter College Okhalkanda Nainital-D, on administrative grounds. Thereafter, by order dated 04.12.2017, he was relieved to join at Government Inter College Okhalkanda Nainital-D. Being aggrieved with the order of transfer, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3633 of 2017 (S/S), which was disposed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 27.12.2017, directing respondent no.4 Additional Director (Madhyamik Siksha), Kumaon Mandal, Nainital, District Nainital to decide the representation of the petitioner, after giving personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by a reasoned and speaking order as early as possible, but not later than three weeks of presentation of certified copy of this order along with representation before the said representation before the said representation. It is noteworthy to mention here that the Coordinate Bench, while disposing of the matter, did not grant any interim order to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner moved his representation dated 05.01.2018, which has been rejected by respondent no.4 by order dated 02.02.2018. It is noteworthy to mention here that the Coordinate Bench, while disposing of the matter, did not grant any interim order to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner moved his representation dated 05.01.2018, which has been rejected by respondent no.4 by order dated 02.02.2018. It is, thereafter, that the petitioner has again approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs : (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 02.02.2018 and impugned transfer order dated 27.11.2017 passed by respondent no.4 herein and also quash the reliving order dated 04.12.2017 passed by respondent no.5 (contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 3 of this writ petition respectively). 6. After filing of the writ petition, this Court issued oral direction to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties at District Udham Singh Nagar. On the oral directions of this Court, Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, has issued a letter dated 13.03.2018, whereby petitioner was permitted to continue his duties at District Udham Singh Nagar, only till the completion of Intermediate Examination of petitioner’s son. Now, examination of son of the petitioner is over. The well settled position is that transfer is exigency of service and is an administrative decision. That apart, the Court finds that this is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. In WPSS No.3633 of 2017 (S/S) also, petitioner had challenged the transfer order dated 27.11.2017 and relieving order dated 04.12.2017. In that writ petition, no interference was called by the Court in the impugned transfer order and reliving order and simply a direction was issued to respondent to take decision on petitioner’s representation and the writ petition was disposed of, as such. In view of this Court, this second writ petition for the same reliefs is not maintainable. As far as order dated 02.02.2018 is concerned, whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected, petitioner has no legal right to challenge the consequential order. 7. In the light of aforesaid, writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.