The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging a long-pending transfer order. The court held that transfer is a matter of service exigency and found no ground to invoke discretionary jurisdiction to interfere.
Writ petition dismissed. Interim order vacated.
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. - 37185 of 2009
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Singh And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition involves challenge to a transfer order, which is pending in this court from several years.
Transfer is an exigency of service. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were working on a transferable post.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any good reason to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this court and to interfere with the impugned transfer order. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Interim order, if any granted earlier, is vacated.
Order Date :- 5.12.2019 NLY
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with a transfer order under its discretionary jurisdiction.
Om Prakash Singh And Others
State of U.P. and Others
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
