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
7 paragraphs · 267 wordsL. Narayana Swamy, CJ
By way of the instant writ petition, impugned order of transfer, dated 25th August, 2020 (Annexure P1) has been assailed by the petitioner.
The main grounds of challenge are that the petitioner has not completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting and that the private respondent, who has been transferred in the place of the petitioner is a contract employee; and under these circumstances, disturbing the petitioner by a contract employee is contrary to the Policy of the Government.
Mr. Adarsh K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that as long as there is a provision permitting the transfer of an employee, the transfer of the petitioner, in the instant case, is permissible and not contrary to any regulation. He further submits that the petitioner has no locus standi since she has completed her normal tenure at the present place of posting.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not wish to interfere in the impugned transfer order, however, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation in this regard within a period of one week from today. If such representation is made by the petitioner, it is for the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Till the representation is decided by the respondentsGovernment, the petitioner shall not be disturbed, in case she has yet not been relieved.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
Copy dasti.