Dismissed

Anoop Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2018WRIA/19196/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an administrative transfer order from Gorakhpur to Kanpur. The court rejected grounds based on the petitioner's wife's medical needs, insufficient remaining service to claim retention, and a plea for mutual transfer, citing judicial non-interference in administrative transfers.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; transfer order upheld.

Anoop Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19196 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶5

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 24.8.2018 whereby he has been transferred from Gorakhpur to Kanpur on the post of Executive Engineer (Jal).

¶6

Three grounds have been taken. The first ground is that his wife is undergoing treatment in BHU. The second ground taken is that he has 2 years 3 months of service left and therefore, under the transfer policy dated 29.3.2018, he is entitled to be retained at Gorakhpur and the third plea taken is that the respondent no. 3 who is posted at Banda and has been transferred to Varanasi but he wants to go to Kanpur and therefore, he may be sent to Kanpur and the petitioner may be posted at Varanasi.

¶7

In so far as the ground of illness of the wife of the petitioner is concerned, we find from the medical reports brought on record that the wife of the petitioner has been taking treatment from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi , Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi as well as Sahara Hospital, Lucknow. Besides, Kanpur has the best of hospitals and has also had a medical college where the petitioner can get treatment for his wife. Therefore, we are not impressed with the first ground that the petitioner should be transferred to Varanasi otherwise, his wife will not get good treatment anywhere else.

¶8

In so far as the second ground is concerned, we find that the petitioner on his own showing has 2 years 3 months of service left and therefore, he is not covered by Para 11(x) of the transfer policy dated 29.3.2018.

¶9

In so far as the third ground of mutual transfer with respondent no. 3 is concerned, we are not impressed at all because ultimately the State is the best positioned to decide as to where the petitioner should be posted and the petitioner cannot insist that the respondent no. 3 should be posted at Kanpur in his place and he may be sent to Varanasi. The petitioner cannot hold the brief of the respondent no. 3.

¶10

The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Gobardhan Lal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402, in paragraph 8 has held as under:-

¶11

"8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer."

¶12

We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 24.8.2018.

¶13

The writ petition lacks merit and accordingly stands dismissed. Order Date :- 11.9.2018 nd

Anoop Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brij Bihari Lal Nigam Vs General Manager, Allahabad Up Gramin Bank Civil Lines and Another

Dr. Brijendra Kumar Singh Vs Chief Secretary Uttar Pradesh Government and 4 Others

Surya Bhushan Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar Paliwal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Saroj Raizada Vs State of U P and 4 Others