Dharam Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 9.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 1.2.2011 placing the Appellant from one Circle to another had been dismissed.

We have heard Sri A.K. Srivastava learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned standing counsel for the Respondents and have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 9.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it.

Sri A.K. Srivastava learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that impugned order dated 1.2.2011 in the writ petition contained no place of posting. So far as the Appellant is concerned, he may not be compelled to join at a particular place in the absence of the order of place of posting.

This Court vide order dated 4.4.2011 directed learned standing counsel to obtain instructions, which he has placed before the Court. On the basis of the instructions, he has stated that the Appellant was transferred on 19.7.2006 from Tahsil Dataganj to Tahsil Saswan.

The order dated 19.7.2006 was challenged by the Appellant in writ petition No. 45401 of 2006, which had been dismissed on 24.8.2006 whereupon the special appeal No. 1076 of 2006 was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.7.2008. However the Appellant had not joined at the transferred place i.e. Tahsil Saswan and by the order dated 1.02.2011, the earlier transfer order had been made ineffective.

These facts had not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. He however submitted that the Appellant has been working since 2008 at Tahsil Dataganj at which he was working prior to the transfer order dated 19.7.2006 and therefore he should be allowed to continue at that very place. The submission is wholly misconceived.

The Appellant cannot be permitted to get rid off the transfer order by taking recourse to the legal proceedings where even the writ petition and the appeal had been dismissed. The order dated 19.7.2006 has to be given effect to, which has been done in the present case. We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of the learned single judge.

The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.