Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.35 seconds)
Natha Ram Choudhary vs Raj. Civil Serv. Appl. Tribunal, ... on 23 October, 2008 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs H.N. Kirtania on 12 July, 1989

As per the respondent No.4 the order "B" was passed in administrative exigency, therefore, this Court should restrain itself from interfering with the same. It is also stated that the petitioner is a resident of District Barmer and, therefore, in view of the Government of Rajasthan's circular dated 17.11.1959 read with the order dated 22.6.1989, he could have not been posted in Barmer District. Relevant to note that by the circular dated 17.11.1959 the Government of Rajasthan notified ban on the 8 posting of Gazetted Officers of Forest Department those are Assistant Conservators and Divisional Forest Officers in their home districts and by the order dated 22.6.1989 the post of Regional Forest Officer was declared as a Gazetted post. Counsel for the respondent No.4 also placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. H.N.Kirtania [(1989)3 SCC 445]; Kendriya Vidhyalay Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Ors. [(2004)12 SCC 299; National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan Shiv Prakash [(2001)8 SCC 574]; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004)11 SCC 402; and N.K.Singh v. Union of India [(1994)6 SCC 98]. The ratio of all the judgments referred above is that the Courts are not required to interfere with the orders of transfers unless those are in violation of mandatory statute or out come of malafides.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 80 - K N Singh - Full Document

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs Damodar Prasad Pandey And Ors on 20 September, 2004

As per the respondent No.4 the order "B" was passed in administrative exigency, therefore, this Court should restrain itself from interfering with the same. It is also stated that the petitioner is a resident of District Barmer and, therefore, in view of the Government of Rajasthan's circular dated 17.11.1959 read with the order dated 22.6.1989, he could have not been posted in Barmer District. Relevant to note that by the circular dated 17.11.1959 the Government of Rajasthan notified ban on the 8 posting of Gazetted Officers of Forest Department those are Assistant Conservators and Divisional Forest Officers in their home districts and by the order dated 22.6.1989 the post of Regional Forest Officer was declared as a Gazetted post. Counsel for the respondent No.4 also placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. H.N.Kirtania [(1989)3 SCC 445]; Kendriya Vidhyalay Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Ors. [(2004)12 SCC 299; National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan Shiv Prakash [(2001)8 SCC 574]; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004)11 SCC 402; and N.K.Singh v. Union of India [(1994)6 SCC 98]. The ratio of all the judgments referred above is that the Courts are not required to interfere with the orders of transfers unless those are in violation of mandatory statute or out come of malafides.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 243 - Full Document

State Of U. P. & Ors vs Gobardhan Lal on 23 March, 2004

As per the respondent No.4 the order "B" was passed in administrative exigency, therefore, this Court should restrain itself from interfering with the same. It is also stated that the petitioner is a resident of District Barmer and, therefore, in view of the Government of Rajasthan's circular dated 17.11.1959 read with the order dated 22.6.1989, he could have not been posted in Barmer District. Relevant to note that by the circular dated 17.11.1959 the Government of Rajasthan notified ban on the 8 posting of Gazetted Officers of Forest Department those are Assistant Conservators and Divisional Forest Officers in their home districts and by the order dated 22.6.1989 the post of Regional Forest Officer was declared as a Gazetted post. Counsel for the respondent No.4 also placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. H.N.Kirtania [(1989)3 SCC 445]; Kendriya Vidhyalay Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Ors. [(2004)12 SCC 299; National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan Shiv Prakash [(2001)8 SCC 574]; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004)11 SCC 402; and N.K.Singh v. Union of India [(1994)6 SCC 98]. The ratio of all the judgments referred above is that the Courts are not required to interfere with the orders of transfers unless those are in violation of mandatory statute or out come of malafides.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1319 - D Raju - Full Document

N.K. Singh vs Union Of India on 25 August, 1994

As per the respondent No.4 the order "B" was passed in administrative exigency, therefore, this Court should restrain itself from interfering with the same. It is also stated that the petitioner is a resident of District Barmer and, therefore, in view of the Government of Rajasthan's circular dated 17.11.1959 read with the order dated 22.6.1989, he could have not been posted in Barmer District. Relevant to note that by the circular dated 17.11.1959 the Government of Rajasthan notified ban on the 8 posting of Gazetted Officers of Forest Department those are Assistant Conservators and Divisional Forest Officers in their home districts and by the order dated 22.6.1989 the post of Regional Forest Officer was declared as a Gazetted post. Counsel for the respondent No.4 also placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. H.N.Kirtania [(1989)3 SCC 445]; Kendriya Vidhyalay Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Ors. [(2004)12 SCC 299; National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan Shiv Prakash [(2001)8 SCC 574]; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004)11 SCC 402; and N.K.Singh v. Union of India [(1994)6 SCC 98]. The ratio of all the judgments referred above is that the Courts are not required to interfere with the orders of transfers unless those are in violation of mandatory statute or out come of malafides.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 512 - J S Verma - Full Document

Rajendra Roy vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 17 November, 1992

Learned counsel for the petitioner while meeting with the stand of the respondents urged that he is aware of settled position of law that the transfer of an employee is a normal incident of service. No employee can claim to stay at the place of his choice and the Courts are not required to 9 interfere with the orders of transfer unless those are in violation of mandatory statutes or are out come of malafides. The allegation of malafides should have firm foundation as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy's case (supra), but in the instant matter on basis of antecedent facts and circumstances and also on basis of the record made available by the official respondents valid inference for issuing the order of transfer "B" with malafides can be drawn.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 326 - G N Ray - Full Document
1