AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 209 wordsM. Katju, A.C.J. and Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
This special appeal has been filed against the interim order of the learned Single Judge, dated 4 August, 2001, slaying the transfer order.
Transfer is an exigency of service and hence this Court should not ordinarily interfere vide Vijay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2005 (1) LLN 144. The aforesaid decision has considered the relevant case law on the point.
It has also been held in Special Appeal No. 911 of 2001, Sandeep Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh decided on 5 August, 2001; Special Appeal No. 860 of 2004; Shesh Nath Singh v. Mukesh Singh, decided on 26 July, 2004 and Union of India v. Raghubir Prasad, decided on 2 July, 2004 that a special appeal is maintainable against an interim order staying a transfer order.
The learned Single Judge has stated that there have been frequent transfers of the writ petitioner. In our opinion there is no bar to frequent transfers. Moreover, the mere fact that the petitioner''s children are studying and transfer is in mid-session is no a ground for interference with the transfer order.
The appeal is allowed and the order, dated 4 August, 2004, is set aside.