Dismissed

Dr. Trigunateet Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2020SPLAD/336/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the rejection of the writ petition challenging the petitioner's transfer, finding the order based on administrative exigency and negligence rather than extraneous political considerations or arbitrariness.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal dismissed against the writ petition rejection upholding the medical officer's transfer order.

Dr. Trigunateet Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 336 of 2020 Appellant :- Dr. Trigunateet Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Kranti Kiran Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶3

This appeal is preferred to question the correctness of the order dated 17.06.2020 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ- A No. 4355 of 2020 dismissing the writ petition assailing validity of the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar. By the order aforesaid the Chief Medical Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar transferred the petitioner from Community Health Centre, Nath Nagar to Community Health Centre, Semariyavn.

¶4

The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the order impugned is not in administrative exigency but is an outcome of extraneous considerations. According to learned counsel the order dated 11.02.2020 refers a complaint set to be made by a local political person and the transfer is also based on that as such the same is bad. It is asserted that learned Single Bench failed to appreciate extraneous consideration of the matter.

¶5

We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. True it is the order dated 11.02.2020 refers a complaint set to be made by a local political person and other persons of working at the same place but at the same time the same also mentions set of necessary administrative exigencies demanding transfer of the appellant / petitioner. So far as the alleged complaint is concerned that is nothing but set and facts relating to negligence on the part of the petitioner in discharging his administrative functions. In entirety, the order does not appears to be passed in malacious exercise of powers but in administrative exigency. It is well settled that the Courts are not required to interfere with an order of transfer until that is in violation of a statute or is outcome of extraneous considerations or is shockingly arbitrary. No such eventuality exist in the instant matter. Learned Single Bench, therefore, rightly refused to interfere in the matter by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appeal is bereft of merits, hence, dismissed.

¶6

Order Date :- 6.8.2020 AS Rathore

¶7

(Samit Gopal,J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Dr. Trigunateet Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Trigunateet Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Farooq and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh Dubey and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

The State of U.P. and Another Vs Surya Prakash Rai and Another

Chandrapal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Km. Shelly Vs Union of India through,Ministry of Railway and 4 Others