Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Bikram Singh vs State Of J&K on 6 October, 2016
Author: Ramalingam Sudhakar
Bench: Ramalingam Sudhakar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU SWP No. 862 OF 2014 Bikram Singh Petitioners State of J&K & ors Respondent !None ^Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG Honble Mr. Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, Judge Date: 06.10.2016 :J U D G M E N T :
1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner, engaged as Class IV seeks following relief(s)
i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari whereby quashing the Order No. CEO/D/NTS/32291-93 dated 1.3.2014 issued by respondent NO.3 whereby the petitioner has been transferred which is patently illegal, arbitrary and issued with malafide and oblique motive and also in-violation of Model Code of Conduct which is in operation in view of ensuing General elections 2014.
ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly respondent No.3 to allow the petitioner to continue at his present place of posting against the post which he was holding prior to the issuance of order impugned i.e. in the institute of respondent No. 4.
2iii) Any other writ order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner as against the respondents.
2. The writ petition is admitted. Post admission notice.
3. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Objections have not been filed.
4. The Court while showing indulgence stayed the operation of order No. CEO/D/NTS/32291-93 dated 01.03.2014 and since then the petitioner is continuing at his place.
5. The plea raised by the petitioner that his transfer was ordered during the Model Code of Conduct does not merit consideration at this stage when by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, he has served more than two years at the same place and he cannot continue at the same place for ever. This is moreso in view of the Full Bench Judgment passed by this Court in case titled Syed Hilal Ahmad & ors. vs. State of J&K & ors. decided on 31.08.2015 reported in 2015 (3) JKJ 398 (HC), where this Court has already held that the transfer is an exigency of service and, therefore, by virtue of an interim order, petitioner cannot seek to continue forever.
6. In such view of the matter, if the petitioner has not been transferred to any other post in the meanwhile, and if he continues the same position by virtue of the interim order, he is at liberty to make representation to the authority concerned for placing him at the appropriate place as per the transfer policy. Such representation should be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The authority concerned shall take a decision in this matter preferable within four weeks 3 thereafter. Till such time, the status of the petitioner shall not be disturbed.
8. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ( Ramalingam Sudhakar) Judge Jammu:
06.10.2016