Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. K. Seth, J.
UMESH CHAND LAWANIA - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, AGRA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 40479 Of 1998
Decided On : 01/06/1999
Transfer - Administrative Grounds - The court held that the administration has the discretion to decide on administrative reasons for transfer, and the court cannot substitute its own view. The petitioner cannot claim a legal right to stay in the same place for an indefinite period, and the court is not empowered to ascertain the existence of administrative necessity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was transferred to Aligarh but obtained an interim order staying the transfer. The petitioner was later relieved from the post pursuant to the transfer order and challenged it in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order was based on administrative grounds, and the petitioner's contention that administrative grounds no longer existed after five years was devoid of merit. The court held that it did not see any reason to interfere with the transfer order.
Issues: The issue was whether the transfer order based on administrative grounds was valid, and whether the court had the authority to question the existence of administrative necessity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the administration has discretion in deciding on administrative reasons for transfer, and the petitioner cannot claim a legal right to stay in the same place indefinitely. The court also stated that it was not empowered to ascertain the existence of administrative necessity.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was transferred by an order dated 17th April, 1993 to Aligarh but the petitioner had obtained an interim order dated 24th August, 1993 by which the operation of the order of transfer was stayed for a period of three months. It seems that the said interim order was not extended thereafter. By virtue of an order dated 7th November, 1998 contained in Annexure-2 to this petition, the petitioner has been relieved from the present post pursuant to the order dated 17th April, 1993. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.
( 2 ) MR. P. N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the said transfer order contained in Annexure-2 on the sole ground that the order of transfer issued on 17th April, 1993 was purely on administrative ground and after lapse of five years, administrative ground cannot be said to exist. The contention is absolutely devoid of any merit.
( 3 ) WHETHER administrative reason survives or not is a question that has to be weighed with the administration. The administration has its own discretion to which the Court cannot substitute its own view. It is not denied that the transfer is an incidence of the service. The petitioner cannot claim any legal right to stay in the same place for an indefinite period. How he would be transferred and on what ground is a question absolutely at the discretion of the administration. The petitioner has not alleged any illegality or mala fide except that the administrative reason does not exist. The Court is not empowered to ascertain as to whether the administrative necessity exists or not.
( 4 ) IN that view of the matter. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order dated 7th november, 1998 contained in Annexure-2.
( 5 ) THE writ petition, thus, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
.
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
