Dismissed

Ritesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2018SPLA/654/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the Single Bench order dismissing the writ petition challenging a government transfer order, finding the transfer to be based on administrative exigency without malafide or statutory violation.

What did the court decide?

Settled that courts do not interfere with transfer orders unless based on malafide, statutory violation or arbitrary action; appeal dismissed.

Ritesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 654 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Ritesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinod Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is preferred to question the correctness of the order dated 11.7.2018 passed by the learned single Bench in Writ-A No. 14334 of 2018.

¶6

Factual matrix of the case is that appellant petitioner, who is a Junior Assistant, was transferred from the office of District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi to the office of Government High School, Baulia, Badagaon, Varanasi under an order dated 15.06.2018 passed by the Additional Director of Education (Basic), U.P. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, a petition for writ was filed with the assertion that the order impugned was not an outcome of administrative exigency but for extraneous considerations. Learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ by arriving at a conclusion that the order impugned does not suffers from ay error of law that warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶7

In appeal it is stated that learned single Bench failed to appreciate the communication dated 2.6.2018 which clearly indicates that the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi made a request for transfer of appellant petitioner for extraneous consideration.

¶8

Having considered the averments contained in the petition for writ and on perusing the documents annexed thereto, we do not find any merit to the arguments advanced. The communication dated 02.06.2018 is a communication from District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi to the Additional Director of Education (Basic) pointing out certain problems existing in the office concerned due to the appellant petitioner being a local resident. The Additional Director of Education (Basic) has passed the order dated 15.6.2018 transferring several employees from one place to another including the appellant petitioner. The transfer of the appellant petitioner apparently is in administrative exigency and, as such, merely on the count of certain issues pointed by the District Inspector of Schools it cannot be said that the order is stigmatic or is an outcome of malafide.

¶9

It is also well settled that the Courts are not required to interfere with the order of transfers until those are in violation of statute or are outcome of malafide or are shockingly arbitrary. No such eventuality exists in the case in hand and, as such, learned single Bench rightly refused to interfere in the matter by invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

The appeal is dismissed being bereft of merit.

¶11

Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Shekhar

¶12

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

Ritesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cantonment Board Thru C.E.O. and Another Vs Usha Bunkar and Another

Ved Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Kapil Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

M/S Intellicity Business Park Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs U P Real Estate Regulatory Authority and 3 Others

Ratan Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shahnaz Chaudhary and Another Vs the Registrar, Cooperative Societies U.P. and 15 Others