Rajendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2011 whereby his earlier order of transfer has been cancelled.

It is contended that once transfer order has been carried out and the petitioner has joined, the same cannot be cancelled without assigning any reason and the same is wholly illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed of a Full Bench judgment in Smt. Shivraji (Decd.) through L.Rs. & ORs. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 1997 AWC (Supp.) 454.

In my view, the submission is thoroughly misconceived. In the Full Bench judgment in Smt. Shivraji (supra) the question up for consideration before the Bench was as under:

Whether it is open for the Consolidation authorities to review/recall their final orders exercising inherent powers even though the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 does not vest them any review jurisdiction?

It cannot be doubted that orders passed under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by Consolidation authorities are quasi judicial affecting civil rights of the parties and therefore this Court held that authorities discharging quasi judicial function as Courts or Tribunal cannot re-consider the order passed by them unless specifically provided in the statute. It is well settled that transfer is exigency of service and therefore, it does not affect any of the rights of the employee concerned when he is shifted from one place to another. Moreover, in the matter of transfer itself whether the same can be altered, changed, modified or cancelled subsequently, once the order of transfer has been given effect to and the employee concerned has joined, the issue came up for consideration before Full Bench in Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow & Others Vs. Natthi Lal, 1995(2) UPLBEC 1128 and it has been held that the same is well within the powers of authorities concerned and merely because the incumbent has joined, such power cannot be divested.

The petitioner also relied on a Division Bench judgment in Onkar Nath Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors 1990 AWC 1078. In my view, even this judgment has no application at all. Therein question of change of date of birth recorded in service book was involved and relying on Apex Court decision in State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Others, , this Court held that alteration in date of birth affects right of the employee to continue in service in a particular length of time and therefore, affects his civil rights, which cannot be adversely affected without giving any show cause notice or in violation of principles of natural justice. In the matter of transfer, principles of natural justice have no application at all. Therefore reliance on the aforesaid judgment is totally misconceived.

It is not the case of the petitioner that impugned order of transfer has been passed in violation of any statutory rules or by incompetent authority or vitiated on account of mala fide since none has been impleaded eo nomine. No interference in such matter is called for.

Dismissed.