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
13 paragraphs · 378 wordsTarlok Singh Chauhan, J
Aggrieved by the order of transfer, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
“(i) issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer order dated 26.9.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.2.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the transfer order dated 26.9.2022 issued by respondent No.2 as same is in contrary to the transfer policy.”
2 An impression was generated by the petitioner that the order of transfer is an outcome of the D.O. note issued by respondent No.5, which prompted this Court to pass the following order on 30.9.2022:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order of transfer impugned herein has neither been passed in administrative exigency, nor in public interest, but solely on the basis of D.O. Note No. 448215 dated 23.09.2022.
In such circumstances, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. Notice be issued for the service of respondent No.5 and 6, returnable for 18.11.2022, on taking steps within one week.
CMP No. 13944 of 2022
Notice in the aforesaid terms. In the meanwhile, the execution and implementation of order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) is ordered to be stayed qua the petitioner and private respondent No.6.
3 However, today, the records, produced by the respondent-State pursuant to the direction to this effect, would go to reveal that the transfer of the petitioner has not been effected on the basis of recommendations of respondent No.5, but on account of request made by respondent No.6 for her transfer, which has been approved by the competent authority.
4 Clearly, the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by not only unnecessarily arraying respondent No.5 and levelling allegations against him, but also prompting and pre-empting this Court to pass the aforesaid order, dated 30.9.2022.
5 It is more than settled that the person, who has not approached the Court with clean hands, is not entitled to any equity much less relief(s).
6 In view of aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.