Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Aloke Chakrabarti
NATTHI LAL
Versus
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF AGRI U P GOVT LUCKNOW
Decided On : 23 December 1994
C. M. W. P. Nos. 25918, 26532, 26128 and 26445 of 1994
TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT SERVANTS - ADMINISTRATIVE EXIGENCY AND PUBLIC INTEREST - JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - SCOPE - FRAUD ON POWER - SUBSEQUENT ORDERS - COMMUNICATION TO OFFICER CONCERNED - WRONG FORUM - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, challenged the transfer order issued by the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, transferring him from the post of Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly, to the office of the Deputy Director (Administration), Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly. The petitioner alleged that the transfer order was passed at the political interference only for the purpose of getting the respondent No. 7 at proper berth according to his own choice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to support the impugned transfer order on the alleged ground of administrative exigency and in the circumstances the writ of certiorari can be issued without further proof of mala fide. The court also found that the transfer order was passed for the purpose of giving berth to the respondent No. 7, according to his own choice and as such his requirement could not be an administrative exigency of public interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned transfer order was passed in administrative exigencies and in public interest or it was to give the respondent No. 7 a suitable berth according to his own choice on political interference? 2. Whether the subsequent orders relating to the petitioner, which were not communicated to the petitioner, were effective?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the transfer order was not passed in administrative exigencies and in public interest, but was passed for the purpose of giving berth to the respondent No. 7, according to his own choice and as such his requirement could not be an administrative exigency of public interest. 2. The court held that the subsequent orders relating to the petitioner, which were not communicated to the petitioner, were not effective.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned transfer order dated 14-6-1994. The court also made it clear that the authorities concerned have not been prevented from passing appropriate transfer order at proper time in future if the exigency of service so requires in the public interest.
In the present writ petition subject-matter of chal lenge in the order dated 14-6-1994, passed by the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was posted as Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly by order dated 14-10-1992 and he joined accordingly on 24-10-1992, just after ten days of joining the order of posting of the petitioner at Bareilly was cancelled be the order dated 2-11-1992. The petitioner moved a writ petition challenging the said cancellation order wherefrom the writ petition No. 42936 of 1992 arose. By the judgment and order dated 19-4-1994 said writ petition was allowed. The relevant portion of the order is as follows :
"as a result of the aforesaid discussions the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 2-11-1992 cancelling the petitioners transfer order dated 14-10-1992 is hereby quashed. However, it shall be open to the authorities concerned to pass fresh transfer order if the exigencies of the service so require and the same be in public interest. The parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition. "
3. The allegation of the petitioner is that by the order dated 14-6-1994 issued by the respondent No. 2, Mr. Ram Narayan Singh Yadav (R. N. Singh), the respondent No. 7 was transferred and posted as Secretary, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly and by the same order the petitioner was directed to be attached with the office of the Deputy Director (Adminis tration) Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bareilly.
4. The complaint of the petitioner is that the posting of the respon dent No. 7, Mr. R. N. Singh has been made only on account of the personal and political consideration. The allegation against the respondent No. 7 is that he is an influential person as he is closely related to the Chief Minister of the State. Who incidently is holding the charge of Agricultural Ministry. It is stated that the said respondent No. 7 has succeeded in getting a number of transfer orders cancelled within a short period of time, The orders of trans fer of the respondent No. 7, as alleged, are as follows :
(a) By the order dated 6-5-1994 the respondent No. 7 Mr. R. N. Singh Yadav was posted as Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Shahjahanpur.
(b) By the order dated 11-5 1995 the posting of respondent No. 7 at Shahjahanpur was cancelled.
(c) On the same date i. e. 11-5-1994 the respondent No. 2 again passed order posting the respondent No. 7 as Secretary (1st class), Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly.
(d) By the order dated 13-5-1994 posting of respondent No. 7 was stayed by the Joint Director Mandi Parishad, Lucknow.
(e) By the order dated 15-5-1994, the Secretary to the Chief Minister, U. P. directed the respondent No. 2 that Mr. R. N. Singh should not be posted at Bareilly.
(f) By the order dated 24-5-94, the Director Mandi Parishad, cancelled the order dated 11-5-1994, the order by which the respondent No. 7 was appointed as Secretary (1st Class) at Bareilly.
5. It appears that the petitioner has annexed several documents to the writ petition being Annexure Nos. 1 to 7 in support of the aforesaid contention and the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the said documents in support of his contention that the present transfer order was passed at the political interference only for the purpose of getting the respondent No. 7 at proper berth according to his own choice.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that for the said sole purpose repeated orders were passed within a short period and as a result thereof the petitioner has been affected by the impugned transfer order.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically refers to the order which showed that the intention of the Chief Minister has been recorded by his secretary relating to the transfer and posting of the respondent No. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in effecting the i
AI
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
