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
6 paragraphs · 236 wordsP. Sam Koshy, J
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/1 dated 05.03.2019, whereby the petitioner, who is working as a Tahsildar, has been posted from Tahsil Bilaigarh to Tahsil Kasdol.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent change of postings, in as much as, in the last about 2-3 years, he has been shifted for about 5-6 times within the same district and thereby the petitioner has been put to frequent transfers.
The further contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed only in order to accommodate the respondent No.3 who has come on transfer from Balrampur to district Balodabazar- Bhatapara.
Perusal of the record would show that the contentions of the petitioner are not in dispute, so far as the frequent change of posting is concerned, however as far as the interference by this Court is concerned, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition only on the ground that the distance between presence place of posting of the petitioner i.e. Bilaigarh and the place, where he is being shifted i.e. Kasdol is too short a distance calling for an interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercising the power of judicial review.
The writ petition accordingly fails and is accordingly dismissed.