Allahabad High Court
Anand Kumar Singh-Ii vs State Of U.P.Addl.Chief Secy. Tax ... on 4 January, 2021
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 18 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 17255 of 2020 Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Singh-Ii Respondent :- State Of U.P.Addl.Chief Secy. Tax &Registration Deptt. & Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Meenakshi Singh Parihar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by respondent no.1, as contained in Annexure 1 to the petition and also to command the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at the present place of posting.
Sri H. G. S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Meenakshi Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned transfer order dated 03.09.2020 passed by respondent no.1 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of transfer policy of the year 2020-21 dated 12.05.2020. He has further submitted that the impugned transfer order does not disclose that the said transfer order has been passed in public interest or due to any administrative exigency and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently relied on paragraph 2 of the Government Order dated 12.05.2020 wherein it is mentioned that the approval of Hon'ble the Chief Minister is required.
Per contra, Sri Vishal Verma learned Counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the same has been passed in accordance with law, in public interest and due to administrative exigency. In such circumstances, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the said transfer order passed by respondent no.1. Learned Counsel for the State has further submitted that before passing the impugned order, the permission has been obtained from the Hon'ble Chief Minister. He has also submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the pleadings of the petition.
Pursuant to order dated 14.12.2020, original record has been produced for the perusal of the Court. I have perused the original record produced by Sri Vishal Verma, learned counsel for the State and found that the impugned order of transfer has been passed with the approval of Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State as per the notification dated 12.05.2020, which is placed on record as Annexure 4 to the petition.
The only submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer policy of the year 2020-21 dated 12.05.2020. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. It is well settled that the transfer is a normal eventuality of service and that is not required to be interfered by the courts until it is violation of statute or is an outcome of malafides or is shocking arbitrarily. No such eventuality exists in the case in hand.
It is admitted fact that the petitioner holds a transferable post and that the authority, who has passed the order of transfer has got full competence to pass order of transfer. An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work at a particular place as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and the Court cannot interfere with a transfer/posting which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency.
An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the court finds that either the order is malafide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order.
In view of the above, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly it is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of Order Date :- 4.1.2021 VNP/-