In a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting a transfer request from Prayagraj to Varanasi, the court held that transfer is a matter of service employer discretion, not a right, and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned order remains good in law.
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. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18735 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt.Kanchan Chaurasia Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.D. Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri R.C. Mauriya holding brief of Shri R.D. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Sports Directorate, U.P. Khel Bhawan, Lucknow whereby the representation moved by the petitioner for a request of transfer from Prayagraj to Varanasi has been rejected.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner as well as her husband, both are posted at Varanasi. The petitioner has two minor girl children as well as mother and father to look after, who are both aged and suffering from disability.
The petitioner was transferred from Varanasi to Prayagraj where she has joined her services and later she has moved a representation which came to be rejected by means of the impugned order dated 16.06.2022.
The submission is that the premise upon which the impugned order has been passed is erroneous inasmuch as it has been noticed that the home district of the petitioner is Ambedkar Nagar. This has persuaded the authorities to not consider the representation moved by the petitioner and moreover the grounds which had been raised and the difficulties faced by the petitioner have not been considered and for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law.
The record indicates that the Court by means of the orders dated 16.12.2022 and 23.01.2023 had required the learned standing counsel to seek instructions and in furtherance thereof, the written instructions have been provided and it has been indicated that the petitioner was posted as Instructor/Deputy Sports Officer for providing swimming instructions. It has also been stated that the
swimming pool has been dismantled in Varanasi and it is at Prayagraj where the services of the petitioner are required.
It is also urged that the petitioner has already served at Varanasi for more than ten years and considering the aforesaid, the petitioner's representation has been rejected.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that insofar as the issue of transfer is concerned, the same is an incidence of service and the employee cannot claim as a matter of right to seek posting at a place of his/her choice. The employer is best suited to adjudge the requirement of its employees and place where the employee is to be posted.
In light of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 16.2.2023 Rakesh/-
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a claim of right to seek transfer to her choice of place.
Whether the impugned order rejecting representation for transfer is bad in law.
Smt. Kanchan Chaurasia
State Of U.P.
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
