SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 2537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Krishna Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9896 of 2023 & CM APPL. 38073 of 2023
Decided On : 08-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Raghunath Pathak and Mr. Anjani Mishra, Advocates, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ajay Jain, Senior Panel Counsel with Ms. Anshika Agarwal, Mr. Krishna Sharma and Ms. Prerna Dhall, Advocates, for the UOI.

The normal tenure for posting is not mandatory and can be curtailed for exigencies of service.

Headnote:

Posting Order - Petitioner's Transfer - The court held that the normal tenure of three years for posting is not mandatory and can be curtailed in case of exigencies of service and interest of the service. The court also considered the petitioner's occupation and the need for his services in a newly created Battalion. The disruption of the petitioner's daughter's education was found to be not significant at the current stage.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order for his immediate transfer to a new Battalion, arguing that it disrupted his daughter's education.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no merit in the petitioner's contention, considering the need for the petitioner's services in the newly created Battalion and the stage of the daughter's education.

Issues: Petitioner's transfer before the expiry of the normal tenure, disruption of daughter's education.

Ratio Decidendi: The normal tenure for posting is not mandatory and can be curtailed for exigencies of service. The court considered the petitioner's occupation and the stage of the daughter's education.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner impugns order dated 22.07.2023 whereby petitioner has been posted to join a new Battalion immediately.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was posted to Halduchaur, Uttarakhand on 11.05.2021 and is sought to be posted out before the expiry of the normal tenure of three years. He further submits that the petitioner's daughter is a student and as such the posting will disrupt her education.

3. We find no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner should not have been posted out prior to expiry of the normal tenure of posting of three years, for the reasons that the normal period of three years is not mandatory. In case of exigencies of service and interest of the service, said period can be curtailed and posting order can be issued prior to expiry of the period of three years.

4. Respondents have sought to post the petitioner to a newly created Battalion where fresh manpower is required. Petitioner is a mason and his services are required for the newly created Battalion.

5. Petitioner has already completed over two years of his tenure in Uttarakhand. Further we may note that the daughter of the petitioner was in Class-VIII when the posting order was issued and today, she is in Class-IX and as such is not in a stage where her board examinations are likely to be affected.

6. Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition. The petition is consequently dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top