Petitioner challenged a transfer order from Prayagraj to Lucknow alleging motive to adjust a junior officer. Held no mala fides were established; transfer was administrative exigency.
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. - 81
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1159 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ravi Shankar Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Anand Prakash Paul,Ashok Khare Sr. Advocate,Brij Bhushan Paul Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Pandey,Bed Kant Mishra,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel in support of the petition, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra for the contesting respondentCorporation, Sri P.N. Saxena learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The challenge in the instant petition is to an order of transfer dated 15 January 2020 in terms of which the petitioner has been transferred from Prayagraj to Lucknow. The order is challenged on the ground that the same has not been made on administrative exigencies and is guided solely by the motive of adjusting the sixth respondent. It is pointed out that the petitioner had been posted at Prayagraj only on 16 December 2019 and the impugned order amounts to a successive transfer made without application of mind. Sri Khare further contends that the petitioner is senior to the sixth respondent and therefore there was no occasion for him being transferred within a short span of time. The Court is also apprised of an order of punishment which has recently been imposed upon the sixth respondent prior to his posting at Prayagraj.
Sri Mehrotra learned counsel submits that the order has been made on administrative exigency and bearing in mind the requirement of completion of important projects within a stipulated time frame. He also refers to a communication stated
to have been addressed by the Chief Project Manager to the Managing Director apprising him that it would be more expedient for the sixth respondent being placed at Prayagraj.
Having considered the rival submissions, the Court notes that the impugned order is not shown or established to be guided by any mala fides. The arrangement internally made by the Corporation appears to be in administrative exigency and consequently merits no interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition is consequently dismissed .
Order Date :- 7.2.2020 faraz
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court under Article 226 can interfere with the administrative transfer order of the petitioner.
Whether there are any grounds of malafides in the transfer order made to the petitioner.
Ravi Shankar Upadhyay
State Of U.P.
Sixth Respondent Corporation
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
