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

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the Appellant challenging his order of transfer from Mandi Samiti, Dibai to Mandi Samiti, Gulavathi, both situate in the district Bulandshahr has been dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the Appellant to represent his grievance before the Director, Mandi Samiti, if he has any personal difficulty.

We have heard Sri K.S. Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Sri Satish Mandhyan, learned Counsel representing Respondents No. 2 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel, who represents Respondent No. 1 and have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it.

Sri Singh, learned Counsel submitted that the transfer order has been passed malafidely as juniors to the Appellant have been retained at the respective places, thus singling out the Appellant. His submission is wholly misconceived. If for some administrative reason, the Appellant has been transferred that action may not be treated to have been taken malafidely. Moreover, the allegations of malafide has not been made in the writ petition nor any officer has been impleaded in person so as to establish the factum of malafide. The other submission made by Sri Singh is that the transfer in the same district can be made only in exceptional circumstances in view of the government policy. We may mention here that the Court is not here to examine the exceptional circumstances with a microscopic eye. It is for the authorities to consider and arrive at a conclusion. The Court is not to interfere in such a decision. Moreover, we find that the learned Single Judge has taken care by observing that the Appellant may represent his grievance before the Director, Mandi Samiti, if he has any personal difficulty.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal fails and is dismissed.