Dismissed

Jahan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2018SPLA/734/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the appellant's transfer. The single bench held the post was transferable and no interference warranted. This court agreed, finding the transfer based on administrative exigency and a complaint by an MLA did not reflect stigma.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed, upholding the single bench order refusing interference in the appellant's transfer.

Jahan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 734 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Jahan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Surendra Kumar Chaubey,Kharag Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 28.07.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ A No.13679 of 2018.

¶6

Brief facts of the case are that the Executive Engineer, Hand-pump Division (North), Bulandshahar under office order dated 22.05.2018 transferred the appellant-petitioner from 4th Sub Division Tubewell, Dibai to 1st Sub Division, Tube-well, Bulandshahar as Munshi. The transfer aforesaid has been affected on basis of some written complaint received from a member of legislative assembly.

¶7

Allegation of the appellant-petitioner is that transfer of the appellant is not in administrative exigency but on the count of some complaint made by a person, who is otherwise stranger.

¶8

Learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ by arriving at conclusion that the post held by the appellant-petitioner is transferable and he is working at the same station for last about 12 years, as such no interference in the matter is warranted.

¶9

In appeal learned counsel has reiterated the arguments raised before Single Bench. We do not find any merit with the argument advanced. From perusal of the transfer dated 22.05.2018, it is apparent that some complaint was received by the Executive Engineer from a member of legislative assembly. The Executive Engineer, who is an authority competent to transfer the appellant-petitioner, noticing administrative exigency transferred the appellant-petitioner. As a matter of fact, order impugned is an outcome of administrative exigency. The term "administrative' is quite wide and that includes various eventualities required for smooth administration of the

¶10

department. The transfer though made on the basis of complaint made by member of legislative assembly in no manner reflects any stigma in working of the appellant-petitioner. The member of legislative assembly, who is public representative has all rights to point out administrative lapses prevailing in the government department or its agencies. It is also relevant to notice that the appellant-petitioner was posted at 4th Sub Division Tubewell, Dibai for the last 12 years and this fact too requires consideration while making transfer and this too is an administrative exigency. In our opinion, learned Single Bench has not committed any wrong while refusing interference in the matter.

¶11

The appeal is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 16.8.2018 Asha

Jahan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Ram Chandra and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Kumar Vs District Inspector of Schools and Another

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umesh Prasad Vs State of U P and 2 Others

U.P. Pariyojna Prabandhak U.P. State Bridge Corporation and 4 Ors. Vs Jai Ram Yadav

Smt. Kavita Devi Vs Dist. Magistrate Bulandshahr and 3 Ors.