Param Singh And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 19 November, 2018
In the case of Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Division, Patna and others, (1981) 2 SCC 72, the Supreme Court has held thus:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 87 (0.78 seconds)Smt Ranjana Singh vs 56 Apo on 14 December, 2020
Monu Pal vs Military Engineer Services on 4 January, 2021
19. As regards interference of the Courts in the matter of transfer, it is trite
to observe that the Hon Apex Court has consistently frowned often on stays
granted by lower courts. Here also there is a bunch of rulings on the matter
such as in the matter of Shanti Kumari v Regional Deputy Director,
Health Services, Patna, 1981 SCC (L & S) 285, Union of India v. H.N.
Kirtania, 1989 (3) SCC 447 etc.
Pradeep Kumar Singh vs Military Engineer Services on 19 January, 2021
18. As regards interference of the Courts in the matter of transfer, it is trite
to observe that the Hon Apex Court has consistently frowned often on stays
granted by lower courts. Here also there is a bunch of rulings on the matter
such as in the matter of Shanti Kumari v Regional Deputy Director,
Health Services, Patna, 1981 SCC (L & S) 285, Union of India v. H.N.
Kirtania, 1989 (3) SCC 447 etc.
Sachinder Singh vs Central Ordnance Depot on 12 July, 2021
Ajaz Ahmad vs Union Of India on 5 March, 2021
10. The grounds of malafide are also not established on the
basis of above reasoning qua the compliance of all the concerned
circulars and the efforts made heretofore by the respondents to
accommodate the applicant to the maximum extent possible in the
past 16 years. Needless to say, on the other hand, a number of
other rulings forbid interference of the Courts in the matter of
transfer. Thus, in the matter of Shanti Kumari v Regional Deputy
Director, Health Services, Patna, 1981 SCC (L & S) 285, Union of
India v. H.N. Kirtania, 1989 (3) SCC 447 etc. non-interference in the
guiding light.
Rashid Hussain vs Union Of India on 21 October, 2022
Here also there is a bunch of rulings
on the matter such as in the matter of Shanti Kumari v Regional
Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna, 1981 SCC (L & S) 285,
Union of India v. H.N. Kirtania, 1989 (3) SCC 447 etc.
Alok Kumar Verma vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 November, 2022
In Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy
Director, Health Services, Patna Division,
Patna (1981) 2 SCC 72), it was ruled that
the transfer of a Government servant may be
due to exigencies of service or due to
administrative reasons, the Courts cannot
interfere in such matters. 6. Considering the
aforementioned view taken by Hon'ble
Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High
Court, it is reiterated that the transfer is an
incident of service and the applicant has no
legally enforceable right to remain posted at
any particular place.
Amit Narayan Rai And 18 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 January, 2023
In the case of Shanti Kumari Vs. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Division, Patna and others; (1981) 2 SCC 72, the Apex Court has held as under:-
Registrar, High Court Of Gujarat vs B.J. Patel, Chief Judicial Magistrate ... on 28 April, 1997
42. The principles governing the grant or refusal of interlocutory or interim relief in a petition under Article 226 challenging the order of transfer are very well settled. They are laid in catena of judicial pronouncements. It may also be mentioned that the respondent Judicial Officer had made a representation and without even waiting for the reply, on the very next day after making representation straightway invoked the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. Ordinarily, when the representation is made and dispute is under the examination and consideration of the Management or administration, writ Court would not be inclined to entertain the petition. This proposition of law is also explained and expounded in the case of Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director, Health Service, Patna, AIR 1981 SC 1577. Therein, it is clearly held that in case of transfer of an auxiliary nurse - Midwife which was under challenge, that transfer of a Government servant may be due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reason, the Court cannot interfere in such matters. The transfer was alleged to be in contravention of State Government's direction. Considering this allegation, it was held that guidelines issued by the Government do not confer upon the employee any legally enforceable rights and therefore, the order of transfer made without following the guidelines cannot be interfered with. If there is breach of guidelines, representation could be made to the authorities who will look into the matter and redress the grievance of the aggrieved employee. It is also clearly held by the Apex Court that when the transfer is challenged on the ground of contravention of the guidelines of the State Government and that too without filing a representation to the State Government, the High Court rightly declined to interfere and the decision of the High Court was, thus, upheld.