Dismissed

Abhishek Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2018WRIA/22134/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a routine mass transfer of constables from Civil Police to Traffic Police. The Court held that the transfer was for administrative exigency, lacked technical errors from the prior quashed order, and caused no prejudice, thus failing to merit judicial interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merit.

Abhishek Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22134 of 2018 Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Mishra,Deepak Kumar Tripathi

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

This writ petition is directed against the order of transfer dated 19.09.2018, where by petitioners have been transferred from Civil Police to Traffic Police.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier on 11.05.2018, a similar order of transfer was issued by the respondents, which came to be challenged before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 12741 of 2018. The said writ petition was allowed and the concerned transfer order was quashed. Therefore, according to the petitioners, respondents are in clear error of authority in passing the transfer order second time.

¶7

I have gone through the record and also gone through the judgment on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners and I find that in the said judgment, the challenge was that the transfer order was passed on compassionate grounds, though there was no such request made by the petitioners who were transferred.

¶8

In the opinion of the Court, earlier the writ petition was allowed because of technical objection being raised and there of course, the authority were in error of law but herein in the instant case, I find that the order has been passed for administrative exigency.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel states that it is a routine transfer from Civil Police to Traffic Police and there is no violation of any rules or regulations and in absence of such violation of condition of service which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. Learned counsel for the petitioners also could not point out any provision of law under which the order of transfer can be said to be without authority of law nor, points out any such issue of malafides which may warrant interference by this Court.

¶10

Even otherwise, I find that the transfer has been made in mass.

¶11

48 Constables were transferred from Civil Police to Traffic Police, hence, I do not find any error in the order of transfer. There is no prejudice caused to the petitioners who are five in number nor, any such prejudice has been pointed out which may classify them to be different from others.

¶12

Writ petition lacks merit. It is dismissed accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.10.2018 sailesh

Abhishek Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Hind Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Archana and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and another

Braham Dev Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and another

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Harendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinit Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others