Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Article 323 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs Ashok Kumar Sharma on 28 August, 2020
5. Law on the issue is well settled that transfer is an
incidence of service and no employee has a right to be remained posted
at a particular place of posting and the transfer policy is mere
guidelines and is not legally enforceable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of
India Vs. Ashok Kumar and another : 2008 (1) SCT 704
704, while
considering the similar issue has held as under ::-
Bank Of India vs Jagjit Singh Mehta on 22 November, 1991
In Bank of India v Jagjit Singh Mehta, 1992(1)
SCT 161 : AIR 1992 SC 519,, Hon'ble Supreme Court was
seized of the guidelines for posting husband and wife at
one station even
en if their employers be different. The Court
found that the only thing required in terms of the
guidelines is that the departmental authorities should
consider this aspect along with the exigencies of
administration. Thus, no right is conferred on an empl
employee
to remain at the same place even if administrative
exigency and transfer policy do not permit it.
Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993
In S.L. Abbas's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative
Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in service matters.
The constraints and norms which the High Court observes
while exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the
Tribunal created under Article 323
323-A of the Constitution.
State Of U. P. & Ors vs Gobardhan Lal on 23 March, 2004
In State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, 2004(2) SCT 368 :
National Hydroelectric Power ... vs 1.Shri Bhagwan on 11 September, 2001
In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited
v. Shri Bhagwan, 2002(1) SCT 236 :
Kirandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 February, 2022
8. Earlier vide order dated 06.01
06.01.2026, petitioner was
transferred from Balbir School of Eminence, Faridkot, to Governmen
Government
Senior Secondary School (Boys),
(Boys), Ferozepur. Aggrieved against the
said transfer order, petitioner filed CWP No.501 of 2026 - Dr.
Kirandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and another, alleging therein that she
had been transferred at a distance of around 45 kms in another district
and the said
sai transfer was unjust and arbitrary. Vide order dated
27.01.2026, while issuing notice of motion, operation of the order dated
06.01.2026 was stayed. However, vide order dated 12.03.2026, passed
by Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of School Ed
Education,
Punjab (respondent No.1), transfer order dated 06.01.2026 of the
petitioner was cancelled and she was adjusted at Government Senior
Secondary School, Arayianwala,
Ar yianwala, District Faridkot, which is at a
distance of 6 kms only. Once the grievance of the petitioner has
already been redressed by the respondents-authorities,
respondents authorities, she cannot claim
as a matter of right posting at a station of her preference or seek to
impose her own terms in this regard.
Sri Pubi Lombi vs The State Of Arunachal Pradesh on 13 October, 2023
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Pubi Lombi v. The
State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 279
279,
has examined the scope of judicial review in the transfer matters and
has held that the same is not permissible in exercising the jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, it
has been held as under: -
1