Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18006 of 2019
Petitioner :- Vijay Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
Petitioner, who is working as Junior Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Firozabad, is before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 28.06.2019 passed by second respondent, whereby, he has been transferred from Firozabad to Fatehpur. A statement of fact has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that till today the petitioner has not been relieved.
Learned counsel for the petitioner informed to the Court that the Chief Development Officer, Firozabad wrote a letter dated 12.07.2019 before the second respondent informing that there is scarcity of staff in the Department and as such, order of transfer of petitioner be stayed for a period of one year. He also submits that petitioner's children are studying at Public Schools District Agra and during mid session, it would not be possible to shift them to the transferred place and as such, this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that there is hardly any scope of interference with the order impugned in view of the dictum of Apex Court in the cases of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others 1995 (71) FLR 1011 (SC); State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal AIR (2004) SC 2165; Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another (2004) 4 SCC 245 and S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and others (2006) 9 SCC, page 583.
Transfer and posting are within the domain of the authority concerned and it is for the authority to decide and determine as to where an incumbent is to be posted and as to where his/her services are to be best utilized. The issue of convenience and inconvenience is also be examined by the authority concerned and not by this Court.
In view of this, as far as this Court is concerned, this Court cannot come to rescue of the petitioner and remedy of petitioner is to represent his claim before the second respondent and in case such a representation is moved within two weeks from today, the same be decided, in accordance with law, preferably within next three weeks from the date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this order considering the letter so issued by the Chief Development Officer dated 12.07.2019. For a period of five weeks or till the disposal of said representation, whichever is earlier, the effect and operation of the order impugned shall remain stayed.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019
A. Pandey