CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Narendra Kumar Joshi vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 27 August 2010 · Citation: (2010) 08 UK CK 0124

HON’BLE JUDGES
Brahma Singh Verma, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 748 of 2010
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

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 · 344 words

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05-07-2010 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) issued by respondent No. 2.

3.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he was posted as an Expert in Horticulture, Ramnagar, District Nainital. On his personal request he was transferred from Ramnagar to Haldwani vide order dated 31.12.2008. Thereafter he was transferred and posted as Assistant Development Officer vide order dated 7.1.2009. Again vide order dated 26.2.2010 the petitioner was transferred to Udhyan Sachal Dal Kendra Betalghat. The said transfer order was issued on administrative ground. The petitioner moved a representation before the respondent narrating therein that transfer on administrative ground is not genuine as he has never misbehaved with the higher official. The petitioner was again transferred on the post of Expert in Horticulture Haldwani from Betalghat vide order dated 26.3.2010. The petitioner alleged that he has been transferred vide impugned order dated 5.7.2010 to Champawat on the post of Horticulture Inspector. His allegation is that the impugned transfer order within a short span of time is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

4.

In the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has moved a representation, Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition, before the Director, Horticulture for redressal of his grievance, but the same is still pending. Hence, the respondents be directed to decide the same by a speaking order and the writ petition may be disposed of today. Prayer is innocuous.

5.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order thereon, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

6.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.