Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
National Hydroelectric Power ... vs 1.Shri Bhagwan on 11 September, 2001
40. Equally, in the case of National Hydroelectric Power
Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri. Bhagwan and Anr.4, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court found that an order of transfer from an existing
place or office to the new project was being questioned on the
ground of prejudice in seniority. This was a routine exercise in
public interest and to improve efficiency in public administration.
Therefore, such orders could not have been interfered with.
Airport Authority Of India vs Rajiv Ratan Pandey & Ors on 17 August, 2009
In the case of Airport Authority of India vs. Rajeev Ratan
Pandey and Ors.5, by an interim order, the transfer was stayed by
the High Court. It is only some inconvenience of the officer
without any whisper of malafides which prevailed the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to interfere with it. Therefore, this order was set
aside being contrary to the settled principles. Even this judgment
is distinguishable on facts.
State Of U. P. & Ors vs Gobardhan Lal on 23 March, 2004
39. State of U. P. and Ors. vs. Gobardhan Lal 3 was a case where
the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was an interference
in the power of the State to transfer officers. There were disputed
questions of fact. Once the High Court was of a clear opinion that
there are disputed questions of fact, it should not have exercised
its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, much less
to interfere with an order of transfer. The challenge to it was not
clear, precise, but vague and ambiguous. The challenge was in
general terms. An allegation was made casually that the transfer
3 2004 III CLR 78
Page 29 of 31
J.V.Salunke,PA
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 00:08:11 :::
901-WPL.3056.2017.doc
orders are result of political pressure, but no particulars were
given. Hence, the appeals of the State were allowed and the order
of the High Court was set aside.
Somesh Tiwari vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 2008
37. None of the decisions that have been brought to our notice
lay down such a principle. Rather, in the case of Somesh Tiwari
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court says in clear terms that if the
power is exercised not in public interest or administrative
exigency, the transfer order, may be administrative, but if issued
for reasons completely extraneous and has no nexus with the
object to be achieved, then, it should be interfered with. In para
16 of this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds thus:-
1