Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Suthar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2018CW/12023/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a transfer order affecting the petitioner's posting within the same district before completion of the mandatory three-year tenure. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that transfers in the interest of administration made by competent authorities are valid unless arbitrary, malafide, or in violation of statutory rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed as devoid of substance and lacking merits.

Ashok Kumar Suthar Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 12023/2018

¶3

Ashok Kumar Suthar S/o Velji Suthar , R/o Village And Post Sakariya Tehsil Garhi Distt. Banswara Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department , Jaipur.

¶7

Chief Executive Officer , Zila Parishad, Banswara.

¶8

Additional Chief Executive Officer , Zila Parishad, Banswara.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Gajua For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

19/07/2018

¶14

Aggrieved of the transfer order dated 2^nd May, 2018, the petitioner has instituted the present writ application.

¶15

The only argument that has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been dislodged from the present place of posting before he could complete the tenure of three years, a policy adopted by the State-respondents vide order dated 8^th September, 2014. For the petitioner has been transferred after two and half years; therefore, the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

¶16

No other point was raised by the counsel for consideration of

¶17

this Court during the course of arguments.

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-12023/2018]

¶20

A glance of the transfer order would reflect that the petitioner has been transferred in public interest and it is from one Gram Panchayat to another in the same district. The grievance that the place of posting to which the petitioner happens to be a distance of 81 kms, cannot be a ground to assail the legality and validity of a transfer order.

¶21

Further, the mere fact that the petitioner has been transferred before the completion of tenure of three years; a policy decision of the State-respondents, would also not be cause for interference with the transfer order made by the competent authority in the interest of administration.

¶22

By now, it is well settled that a transfer order can be interfered with only if is made in violation of any statutory rule or for oblique motives. Admittedly, there are no allegations of malafide against the competent authority who made the transfer order. Transfer of the petitioner has not been effected in violation of any statutory rule.

¶23

In the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. Ramachandran Pillai and Ors.: 2011 (15) SCC 398, on a survey of earlier opinions, the Apex Court of the land observed thus:

¶24

“6. If any executive instructions are to have the force of statutory rules, it must be shown that they were issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or a State Government or other authority by some Statute or the Constitution. Guidelines or executive instructions which are not statutory in character, are not 'laws', and compliance thereof can not be enforced through courts. Even if there has been any violation or breach of such non-statutory guidelines, it will not confer any right on any member of the public, to seek a direction in a court of law, for compliance with such guidelines. An order validly made in accordance with a statute (as in this case, the Public Premises Act), cannot be interfered with, even if there has

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-12023/2018]

¶27

been any transgression of any guidelines, except where it is arbitrary or malafide or in violation of any statutory provision. These are well settled principles (See: Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundrabad v. G. Ratnam, and State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal.

¶28

In view of the above, writ application instituted, is devoid of any substance and lacks in merits; hence, deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

Ordered accordingly.

¶30

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶31

Pcg/149

Ashok Kumar Suthar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Suthar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karunesh Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shyam Lal Tiwari Andors Vs State Education Dep Ors.

Nand Kishore Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Anil Chouhan Andors Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr Deepak Sharma Vs State Education Department Anr.

Narain Lal Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.