Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, SAURABH BANERJEE
Paramjit Singh Nagi (Dr.) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for posting relief. (Para 3) |
| 2. challenge based on outdated policy. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. permission to withdraw petition granted. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. writ petition disposed of. (Para 8 , 9) |
CM APPL. 48873/2022(for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 15703/2022 & CM APPL. 48872/2022(stay)
3. Vide the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following relief(s):
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 07.11.2022 and signal dated 11.11.2022 to the extent whereby the petitioner has been posted to Frontier Headquarter BSF Mizoram Chahchar, irrespective of the fact that the said posting is in violation of their own policy dated 07.12.2011 whereby the petitioner can only be posted to a Composite Hospital; and
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a fresh posting order in consonance of their own policy dated 07.12.2011 and thereby posting the Petitioner to any Composite Hospital in the Country; and
(iii) Pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case."
A superseding policy that has not been challenged negates the validity of prior policy claims in judicial review of administrative decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer and posting of the petitioner should have been governed by the existing policies and guidelines, including the Cadre Review Order....
Point of Law : Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer orde....
The court directed the petitioner to make an appeal before the concerned authority, to be considered on compassionate grounds and disposed of within a specified period.
The court balanced the petitioner's family health issues and impending retirement with the concession granted for seeking a terminal posting, in deciding not to interfere with the posting order.
Management has the discretion to transfer employees based on organizational needs, and courts cannot interfere in such administrative decisions unless there is a clear violation of policy.
Discretionary power of competent authority in transfer orders is not to be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary or mala fide.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in transfer decisions, emphasizing the need for demonstrating arbitrariness for judicial intervention in military postings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
