Ram Adhar Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.—The petitioner has challenged a transfer order. Transfer is an exigency of service. Hence, we cannot interfere in this matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Director of Education v. O. Karuppa Thewan 1996 (1) UPLBEC 34 and has submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision, the petitioner''s transfer should be stayed because his children are studying in school and it is a mid-session transfer.

In our opinion, the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court does not lay down any principle of law that a transfer order is illegal because it is a mid-session of the children''s school education. It is well settled that every directive of the Supreme Court does not lay down a principle of law vide Municipal Committee, Amritsar Vs. Hazara Singh, ; Goodyear India Ltd., Gedore (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kelvinator of India Ltd. and the Food Corporation of India and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, ; Amar Nath Om Prakash and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , etc. A decision is an authority only for the principle of law it lays down.

The decision of the Supreme Court In Director of Education (supra), does not lay down any principle of law that a transfer order is illegal because the children are studying in school and it is mid-session. Thus, there is no force in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, the petitioner may make a representation against the transfer order to the higher authority, who will consider and decide the same in accordance with law, within a month.