Disposed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2021WRIA/1192/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ mandamus directing a state education authority to decide his transfer application. The High Court, without examining merits, mandated a decision within six weeks via a speaking order upon receipt of a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus directing the respondent authority to decide the representation for transfer within six weeks via a speaking order upon receipt of a fresh representation.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1192 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶4

Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the recommendations and formalities for transfer to the petitioner from District Sitapur to District Saharanpur, have been completed. The respondent no. 4-Regional Assistant District of Education (Basic), Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, has to take final decision in the matter. However, no decision has been taken on the representation of the petitioner till date.

¶5

The only prayer made by Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner is that representation of the petitioner may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶6

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to be posted at a particular place. The application for transfer has to be considered keeping the institutional interest and the transfer policy in the matter. However, in his usual fairness he submits that the authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the representation of the petitioner within a reasonable period of time.

¶7

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶8

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 4-Regional Assistant District of Education (Basic), Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur.

¶9

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no. 4-Regional Assistant District of Education (Basic), Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, to execute the following direction:

¶10

The respondent no. 4-Regional Assistant District of Education (Basic), Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, shall decide the representation of the petitioner for his transfer from District Sitapur to District Saharanpur, by a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, along with a copy of fresh representation.

¶11

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.2.2021/Dhananjai

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syeda Rukhsar Mariyam Rizvi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Ramnaresh Singh Chandel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vandana Dwivedi Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Rajoo Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others