Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)
Mr. P.K.Harikumar vs The Director on 15 February, 2016 cites

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

9. Mr. P. Santhosh Kumar learned counsel for the respondents referring to N.K Singh v. UOI (supra), Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) submitted that it is the look out of the departmental authorities to have an assessment of the applicant and his abilities. He further submitted that the applicant was transferred to Puri not out of any malafide intentions but on account of the need of the establishment including the administrative exigencies. He referred to Annexure R/4(a) request of the Puri centre of the CMFRI requesting for providing techinical assistants at the Field Centre, Puri.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 512 - J S Verma - Full Document

Rajendra Singh And Ors. vs State Of Up And Ors. on 29 March, 2008

11. It is also judicially well settled that a Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at one place or other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also is implicit as an essential condition of service, in the absence of any specified condition to the contrary. This was the view expressed by the apex court in Rajendra Singh & Ors. (supra) and in Gobardhan Lal's case (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 69 - A Saran - Full Document

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

10. It is settled law that the courts and Tribunals will exercise its power of judicial review of the order of transfer only if the impugned transfer is vitiated by malafides or is violative of any rules or when the order of transfer was issued by an incompetent authority. In the instant case, the applicant says that besides malafides as stated above, he was transferred in the mid-academic year. It is true that normally transfers are not effected during the mid-academic year as it would affect the school going children, especially those who are appearing in the Board/Public Examinations. However, when the transfer is made on administrative grounds or exigencies of service, even the administrative instructions not to transfer such employees during the mid- academic year will not come to the rescue of the employees becuse such administrative instructions do not confer any indefeasible right on them. [ see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1319 - D Raju - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993

It is also settled position in UOI v. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444, that Administrative Tribunal is not an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer and that it cannot substitute its own judgement for that of the authority competent to transfer. Thus, only when the impugned order of transfer is bad for malafide action / violative of any statutory rule / or has been issued by an incompetent authority the court/tribunal will exercise its power of judicial review.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1804 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1