CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 1 November 2011 · Citation: (2011) 11 UK CK 0153

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1480 (SS) of 2005
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

8 paragraphs · 350 words

Hon''ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate present for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand.

2.

The petitioner is an employee of Commercial Tax Department. Earlier the petitioner on his own request was transferred on 12.8.2011 from Head Quarters Dehradun to Haridwar.

3.

According to the petitioner within two months of his joining after the said transfer he has been transferred from Helping Centre, Narson to Commercial Tax Head Quarter against the transfer policy, which is impugned in the writ petition.

4.

This Court is not inclined to interfere in the transfer order dated 03.10.2011 as the only ground for challenging the transfer order is that the transfer order does not disclose whether the petitioner has not been transferred in public interest or on administrative ground. In fact the order does not assign any reason. The transfer is an exigency of service and there are very limited grounds to challenge the same, which is when the transfer order is in violation of the statutory rules or it is without jurisdiction or which suffers from mala fide. In fact none of the grounds have been taken. Transfer order has been challenged only on the ground as stated above. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier order of the department also reveals that they were asked the petitioner to work at both the Head Quarters, which is not possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has moved a representation on 4.10.2011 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) before the concerned authority, which is still pending and the same may be decided.

6.

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to this innocuous prayer.

7.

As such, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to decide the representation dated 4.10.2011 as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

8.

No order as to costs.