Dismissed

Priya Sahni v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2023WRIA/21127/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a mid-term transfer order. The Court noted pending representations and lack of consideration thereof but declined to interfere, holding that transfer is an incidence of service not claimable as a right, while directing the department to consider the pending representation.

What did the court decide?

The transfer order was not quashed, but the department was directed to consider the pending representation and pass a reasoned order.

Priya Sahni Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21127 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Priya Sahni Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent.

¶6

The learned standing Counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions under the signature of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, which is taken on record.

¶7

Under challenge is the transfer order dated 26.11.2022.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a mid term transfer and the petitioner has already made a representation dated 28.06.2022, a copy of which is on record as annexure no.5 to indicate that the petitioner has a six months old child. However, the same has not been considered.

¶9

Noticing the aforesaid, the record indicates that the Court had required the learned standing counsel to seek instructions by means of the order dated 20.01.2023. A copy of the written instructions has been provided to the Court for its perusal, which is taken on record. However, from a perusal thereof, it indicates that the grounds for transfer as raised by the petitioner has not been considered nor it indicates that the representation moved by the petitioner has been considered and decided.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid as well as the fact that the transfer is an incidence of service and an employee cannot seek as a matter of right and claim to be posted at a particular place, hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed leaving it open for the department to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in accordance with relevant Rules and Law by passing a speaking and reasoned order and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶11

Order Date :- 13.2.2023 Ashish Pd.

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Priya Sahni v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya Sahni 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

Pramila Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shiv Shodhan Dubey Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Ravi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Gaurav Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishan Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others