Allowed

Avadhesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2024/378/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging transfer orders dated 07.12.2023 and 10.01.2024. It held that the Assistant Engineer lacked jurisdiction to pass transfer orders since the Executive Engineer was the appointing authority, resulting in the quashing of the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 10.01.2024 and 07.12.2023 are quashed. Competent Authority directed to pass appropriate transfer order.

Avadhesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:8736

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 378 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Avadhesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunj Bihari Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 whereby the representation of the petitioner against the transfer order dated 07.12.2023 has been rejected and quashing of the transfer order dated 07.12.2023.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was posted at Tube Well No.122, 151, 150 MW (Paikipur, Galrai and Sahupur) as tubewell operator.

¶9

It is further submitted that by the impugned order dated 07.12.2023 the petitioner was transferred from the above mentioned Tube Well to Tube Well No.100, 133, 93 MW (Mudia Ahawan, Baraichi, Baraura) by the Assistant Engineer, who is not competent to pass the order of transfer as the appointing authority of the petitioner is Executive Engineer.

¶10

It is further submitted that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.10078 of 2023 against the transfer order dated 07.12.2023. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by judgement and order dated 22.12.2023 with a direction to the Respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner in pursuance thereof the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 has been passed.

¶11

It is further submitted that in the representation the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the appointing authority is the Executive Engineer whereas the order has been passed by the Assistant Engineer, who has no jurisdiction to pass the transfer order of the petitioner. On the said averments made in the representation no finding has been given by the Executive Engineer while rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel is unable to dispute this fact that the appointing authority is Executive Engineer competent to pass the transfer order.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is an undisputed case of both the parties that the Executive Engineer is the appointing and transferring authority whereas the transfer order has been passed by the Assistant Engineer, which is without jurisdiction.

¶14

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed.

¶15

The impugned orders dated 10.01.2024 and 07.12.2023 issued by the Respondent No.2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed.

¶16

It is always open to the Competent Authority / Appointing Authority i.e. Executive Engineer to pass appropriate order of transfer in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.1.2024

¶18

S. Kumar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Avadhesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avadhesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pratima Sachan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Dhanesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Shanti Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare and 4 Others

Smt. Taharul Nisha Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Others

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Chhedi Lal Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development, Lucknow and 5 Others