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
14 paragraphs · 285 wordsL. Narayana Swamy, CJ
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from knee problem and he is transferred during the ban
period, which is impermissible for the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the transfer is also bad in the eyes of Transfer Policy. Since
he has been transferred prematurely, on this count, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the order of transfer.
Learned Additional Advocate General supports the transfer order and submits that the present petition may be dismissed.
During the ban period, it is for the Government to transfer or not to transfer a person. They got the administrative powers and it is not proper for
this Court to interfere whether during the ban period, any employee is to be transferred or not. It is only a guidance for the State and does not give any
right on the parties. Secondly, the submission is that he has been transferred prematurely that may attract the provisions of the policy. Be that as it
may. We feel it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent, within one
week, in accordance with the transfer policy. In case any such representation is made, the respondents shall consider the same, in the light of the
transfer policy occupying the field, and pass appropriate orders, within two weeks. Subject to filing of representation within the time-frame mentioned
above, the interim order dated 4.8.2020, is extended till the decision of the representation. Pending application(s), if any, are closed.
Copy Dasti.