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
18 paragraphs · 358 wordsTarlok Singh Chauhan, J
The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:
“i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for her transfer to her native place, keeping in view the
adverse family circumstances of the petitioner, vide memorandum/transfer policy dated 10.07.2013.
ii) That the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 23.11.2020, Annexure P-2 within a time bound
manner.
We really wonder how the petition is maintainable.
It is more than settled that a writ of mandamus does not lie to create or establish a legal right but to enforce the legal right that is already
established. Writ being equitable in nature, its issuance is governed by equitable principle. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there
is an existing legal right of the applicant or an existing duty of the respondent.
Apart from other, an employee has no vested right to create a particular post to serve at a particular place for a particular time. It is within the
exclusive domain of the employer to determine as to at what place and where the services of a particular employee are required.
What is more important is that just prior to filing of the instant petition, the petitioner preferred a representation to the respondents with a similar
prayer and that without waiting for its outcome has filed the instant writ petition. It is on the basis of such representation, that the petitioner has sought
direction to the respondent to consider and decide the same within time bound manner. Even though, the prayer on the face of it appears to be now
innocuous, but when considered in depth, it would be noticed that the petitioner wants this Court to act as a Post-Office, which is not permissible in
law. This practice of filing the representation without waiting for its outcome for a reasonable time deserves to be deprecated.
Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Parties are left to bear their own costs.