Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9036 of 2021 Petitioner :- Anshul Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Behari Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Ghildyal
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondent, on instructions, submits that the impugned order dated 15 July 2021, transferring the petitioner from Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Agra, to Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Varanasi, has been passed by the third respondent, Managing Director, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Agra, in terms of the policy as the petitioner has put in 10 years of service at Aligarh. He further submits that the transfer order has been passed in administrative exigency and services of the petitioner is required at Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Ram Bharat Verma vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2007 (25) LCD 1299 and Wasif Akhtar
v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (19) LCD 1275, wherein, it has been held that once an order of transfer is passed for personal reasons on compassionate grounds to a particular place, it could not be altered or changed unless there are very strong and exceptional reasons for accommodating another person, such order be not cancelled.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no other person has been transferred in place of the petitioner. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer has been passed on malafide consideration or is in violation of any statutory provisions governing the service condition of the petitioner.
It is settled principle of law that transfer order is an administrative order and the same can be assailed either on the ground of malafide or the order being in teeth of statutory provisions. None of the grounds exist in the instant case. Merely because the petitioner was transferred within 20 days from the place of posting that would not mean that there is no administrative exigency in transferring the petitioner.
This Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declines to interfere with the impugned order.
In view thereof, writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the competent authority against the impugned order after joining the place of posting raising his grievance.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Mukesh Kr.