Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 August, 2012
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CWP No.15361 of 2012 --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.15361 of 2012
Date of Decision: 13.08.2012
Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
PRESENT: Mr. ADS Jattana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner, who is holding the post of ETT Teacher, has challenged the order dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure P-5) in terms of filing the present writ petition, whereby he has been transferred from Government Primary School, Chak Singhpura to Government Primary School, Chak Bhore.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that it is only in terms of order dated 19.06.2012 that the petitioner had been transferred to Government Primary School, Chak Bhore. As such, counsel has submitted that the impugned order of transfer has been passed after only a period of approximately six weeks from the initial order of transfer.
Counsel further argued that the initial order dated 19.06.2012 had been passed in the normal exigency of service and CWP No.15361 of 2012 --2--
the impugned order dated 02.08.2012 has been passed with a mala fide intent.
In this regard, learned counsel referred to para 17 of the averments, to contend that the impugned transfer has been made on the basis of representation having been made by one, Shri Gurpinder Kumar.
Transfer is an exigency of service. It will be well settled the scope of judicial review in relation to orders of transfer is limited. Order of transfer will be open to challenge only, if the same is vitiated by mala fide, is against his statutory provisions or has been passed by an authority who is not vested with the jurisdiction to pass such order.
The assertion made by the learned counsel as regards mala fide attributed to Gurpinder Kumar would be of no consequence as the aforesaid employee has not been impleaded as party respondent to meet such allegation.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 16.04.1991 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bal Krishan Sareen Vs. Bank of India and others, 1991 (2) SCT, 544. A perusal of such judgment would reveal that this Court had noticed the fact that the petitioner was a Union Leader in the Bank and on account of his conduct of being out spoken and having ventilated grievance of the members of the union that he was victimized in terms of issuance of transfer order.
Learned counsel further placed reliance upon a Single CWP No.15361 of 2012 --3--
Bench Judgment passed by Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Manmohan Lal and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, 1998 (1) SCT 40. Even in this judgment, while interfering in the order of transfer, the Court had noticed that the impugned order of transfer, therein had been passed on the pretext and to oblige the Deputy Minister of Education and as such concluded order had not been passed in the interest of administration.
The aforesaid two judicial precedents relied by the counsel have no bearing on the facts of the present case.
I am not inclined to interfere in the order of transfer. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 13.08.2012 sonika