"7......While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject . Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right."
It is stated that petitioner has filed a representation in respect of his transfer. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34018 of 2013 Order Date :- 19.6.2013
Petitioner :- Indra Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked by the petitioner against his transfer order dated 31.5.2013 passed by the respondent no.2.The petitioner is holding the post of Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari, Pashu Seva Kendra, Chaman Khera, Saharanpur.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that transfer order has been passed in violation of Transfer Policy of the State Government and some other personal hardship have also been stated in the writ petition.
The legal position in the matter of the Government Servant Transfer is too much well settled and requires no reiteration.
In the transfer matter the scope of judicial review is very limited. It is a trite law that no Government Servant has any legal right to be posted at any particular place of his choice. The transfer is an incident of government service.
As regards the submission that transfer order is in violation of the Transfer Police, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. S.L.Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357 has held that guidelines/Transfer Policy does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of N.K.Singh v. Union of India reported in 1994 (6) SCC 98 and Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar reported in 1991 Supp.(2) SCC 659 and Rajendra Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2009 (15) SCC 178.
However, the Supreme Court has also observed in the case of Shilpi Bose (supra) and in the case of S.L.Abbas (supra) that while ordering the transfer the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject and if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to exigency of administration. The relevant part of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.Abbas case (supra is extracted hereunder below:-
"7......While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject . Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right."
It is stated that petitioner has filed a representation in respect of his transfer.
On careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and after perusal of the record I am of the view that end of justice would be subserved in case a direction is issued upon the respondent no. 2 to consider the cause/representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Accordingly writ petition is finally disposed of.
Needless to say that this Court has not expressed it opinion on the merit of the writ petition. The authority concerned shall decide the representation of the petitioner independently in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.6.2013
Print Page
It is stated that petitioner has filed a representation in respect of his transfer. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34018 of 2013 Order Date :- 19.6.2013
Petitioner :- Indra Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked by the petitioner against his transfer order dated 31.5.2013 passed by the respondent no.2.The petitioner is holding the post of Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari, Pashu Seva Kendra, Chaman Khera, Saharanpur.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that transfer order has been passed in violation of Transfer Policy of the State Government and some other personal hardship have also been stated in the writ petition.
The legal position in the matter of the Government Servant Transfer is too much well settled and requires no reiteration.
In the transfer matter the scope of judicial review is very limited. It is a trite law that no Government Servant has any legal right to be posted at any particular place of his choice. The transfer is an incident of government service.
As regards the submission that transfer order is in violation of the Transfer Police, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. S.L.Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357 has held that guidelines/Transfer Policy does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of N.K.Singh v. Union of India reported in 1994 (6) SCC 98 and Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar reported in 1991 Supp.(2) SCC 659 and Rajendra Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2009 (15) SCC 178.
However, the Supreme Court has also observed in the case of Shilpi Bose (supra) and in the case of S.L.Abbas (supra) that while ordering the transfer the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject and if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to exigency of administration. The relevant part of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.Abbas case (supra is extracted hereunder below:-
"7......While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject . Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right."
It is stated that petitioner has filed a representation in respect of his transfer.
On careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and after perusal of the record I am of the view that end of justice would be subserved in case a direction is issued upon the respondent no. 2 to consider the cause/representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Accordingly writ petition is finally disposed of.
Needless to say that this Court has not expressed it opinion on the merit of the writ petition. The authority concerned shall decide the representation of the petitioner independently in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.6.2013
No comments:
Post a Comment