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
15 paragraphs · 291 wordsTarlok Singh Chauhan, J
The instant writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:
“a. that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned office order
dated 19.7.2021 contained in Annexure PÂ1.
b. That Your Lordships may further graciously be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner
to work at Government Primary School Ispur (East) Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.
c. That Your Lordships may further graciously be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent department from
relieving the petitioner from her present place of posting.â€
It would be noticed that the entire thrust of the petitioner seeking quashing of the transfer order is based on personal hardship(s).
3 It is more than settled that the courts are extremely slow in directly interfering in the personal hardship cases. The clear implication of the almost
consistent directions given in the cases is that the transferee could make a representation to the competent authority. Reference in this regard can
conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy vs Union Of India and anr. (1993) 1 SCC 148.
Consequently, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondentsÂState to treat the instant petition as representation on behalf of
the petitioner; and consider and decide the same within a period of two weeks. Till then, the status quo qua the petitioner is ordered to be maintained.
It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as precedent in future. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.