Partly allowed

Naresh Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024WRIA/9934/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the petitioner's transfer before completing the statutory three-year tenure, seemingly to accommodate another officer's request, violates transfer policy. As an interim measure, the operation of the transfer order dated 30.06.2024 is stayed, permitting the petitioner to continue in his original post.

What did the court decide?

The operation and implementation of the transfer order dated 30.06.2024 are stayed; the petitioner is permitted to work at the original post in Pandunagar, Kanpur.

Naresh Kumar vs State of Up and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9934 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Naresh Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradipta Kumar Shahi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶6

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 30.06.2024, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Pandunagar, Kanpur purportedly in public interest, to the Post of Deputy Director, Training and Employment, Lucknow and he was directed to join the transferred post immediately without waiting for the subsequent incumbent to join the post. On the same date the opposite party no.1 has passed another order transferring the opposite party no.2 from the post of Deputy Director, State Staff Training and Research Centre, Aliganj, Lucknow to the post of Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Pandunagar, Kanpur, on his own request.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been transferred to the post of Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Pandunagar, Kanpur from the Government Industrial Training Institute, Mahoba by

¶8

means of an order dated 29.06.2022 on his own request. As per the transfer policy order a person should not be transferred on the place of posting before completion of three years. The petitioner has been transferred from Kanpur before completion of stipulated period of three years purportedly in public interest but apparently to accommodate the opposite party no.2 who has been transferred in place of the petitioner on his own request.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this court rendered by this court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & others: [(2023) 1 UPLBEC 96] wherein a coordinate Bench of this court has held that once the petitioner had been transferred on his own request, he could not have been shunted out only for adjusting the opposite party no.4.

¶10

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State had opposed the writ petition and on the basis of written instructions provided by the opposite party no.2 himself wherein he has stated that he has been transferred on his own request as his wife is also a government servant posted at Kanpur and that he has taken charge of his post on 01.07.2024. The opposite party no.2 has further stated that his transfer has been made as per the annual transfer policy.

¶11

The annual transfer policy provides that transfer shall not ordinarily be made before completion of three years at the place of posting and there is nothing on record as to what compelled transfer of the petitioner in public interest prior to completion of the aforesaid period. Apparently, the petitioner has been transferred to accommodate the opposite party no.2 on is own

¶12

request.

¶13

The matter requires consideration.

¶14

As the opposite party no.2 has himself provided the written instructions to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, there is no need to issue separate notice to him.

¶15

The opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by the petitioner within two weeks' thereafter.

¶16

List this case in the week commencing 09.09.2024.

¶17

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as an interim measure it is provided that the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 30.06.2024, passed by the opposite party no.1 transferring the petitioner from the post of Principal, Government Training Institute, Pandunagar, Kanpur to the post of Deputy Director, Training and Employment, Lucknow shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be permitted to work on the post of Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Pandunagar, Kanpur Kanpur till the next date of listing or till completion of his tenure of three years and passing of a fresh transfer order in accordance with law, whichever is earlier.

¶18

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Ram.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naresh Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akhilesh vs Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta Tehsildar

Vinod vs Sri Naveen Kumar, Up-Zila Adhikari, Tehsil Pharenda

Ramesh vs Sri Uday Shanker Singh Superintendent of Police

Rajesh Kumar Gautam vs Sri Surendra Tiwari, Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad

Mohan Ram Gond and 11 Others vs Ravindra Kumar Mandal. D.M. and Another

Sudhanshu Chaudhary and 4 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others