Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Mohd. Aslam vs State Of J&K & Ors. Decided On 31.08.2015 ... on 6 October, 2016

Author: Ramalingam Sudhakar

Bench: Ramalingam Sudhakar

        

 
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU             
SWP No. 1149 OF 2014    
Mohd. Aslam  
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. This is a case of transfer.

2. Aggrieved by Communication No. CEOJ/45208-09 dated 04.03.2014 addressed to the Principal, Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Hari Singh Jammu by the Chief Education Officer Jammu asking him to relieve the petitioner and directing the petitioner to report to Chief Education Officer Samba, the petitioner preferred writ petition (SWP) No. 1149/2014 and Court while showing its indulgence vide order dated 15.05.2014 directed stay of operation of communication dated 04.03.2015. Since then the petitioner is continuing at his present place.

3. The writ petition is admitted. Post admission notice.

4. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Objections have not been filed.

5. The plea raised by the petitioner that his transfer was ordered under malafide intention by respondent No.3 under 2 political influence to accommodate their own persons does not merit consideration at this stage, when by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, he has served into same place for more than two years. Petitioner 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 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