Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 582 (ALL)

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2020-02-24

SHAMIM AHMED

body2020
JUDGMENT : SHAMIM AHMED, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04.02.2020 passed by respondent no. 6 against the petitioner only. (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to formulate a Uniform Annual transfer policy with regard to the entire police force. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to transfer/relieve the petitioner from his respective place of posting in pursuance of the impugned order and also direct the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 06.02.2020 within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) Award the cost to the petitioner from the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned transfer order the place of transfer is not mentioned where the petitioner has been transferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the son of the petitioner is studying in Class-11 in Bharat Ram Globel School, Greater Noida and if he is transferred in the mid term, the education of the petitioner's son will disturb and he will not get admission anywhere in the mid term. In the next year the son of the petitioner is appearing in Class-12 and as per the Rules of Central Board of Secondary Education, Class-11 and 12 has to be appeared from the same School. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Director of School Education Madras and Others vs. O. Karuppa Thevan, 1994 SCC Supp. (2) 666, no mid term transfer can be done except if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed a detailed representation dated 06.02.2020 against the transfer order, which is still pending before the respondent no. 6 and no final order has been passed. 5. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed a detailed representation dated 06.02.2020 against the transfer order, which is still pending before the respondent no. 6 and no final order has been passed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the transfer order is rightly passed and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have limited powers to interfere in the transfer order. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the transfer order dated 04.02.2020, it appears that the name of the petitioner was find place at serial no. 1 and the place of transfer is not mentioned in the impugned order. Further the son of the petitioner is studying in Class-11 in District Gautam Budh Nagar and if the petitioner is disturbed in the mid session, the education of his son will be disturbed and there is very-less chance that the son of petitioner will get admission in any college during mid session at the newly transferred place. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director of School Education Madras and Others vs. O. Karuppa Thevan, 1994 SCC Supp. (2) 666 was pleased to observe as under:- “Although there is no such rule, we are of the view that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out that there was such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year.” 8. In view of the discussion made above, the respondent no. 6 is directed to consider and decide the representation dated 06.02.2020 of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9. The petitioner shall not relieved from the place of his present posting, if he has already not been relieved till the decision taken by the respondent no. 6 on the representation filed by the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.