Petitioner challenged a transfer order on grounds of policy guideline infraction regarding the three-year tenure rule. The Court dismissed the petition as such infraction does not justify invoking Article 226 jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13561 of 2018
Petitioner :- Dhani Ram Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sakal Yadav,Ram Bachan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This petition challenges an order of transfer dated 13 May 2018. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner holds a transferable post. The order of transfer is also not established to be suffering from any jurisdictional error. The sole submission advanced is that the same amounts to infraction of policy guidelines which mandates that transfer should not ordinarily be effected before the expiry of three years.
Bearing in mind the settled position in law on the subject that such an infraction of a policy guideline cannot constitute a ground for this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court finds no ground to entertain this petition which is consequently dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.6.2018 Arun K. Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether infraction of the policy guideline mandating no transfer before three years entitles the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Dhani Ram Yadav
State Of U P
2 Others
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
