Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 617
2010 (3) UC 1619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
B.S. Verma, J.
Vimal Chandra Pandey
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
Writ Petition No. 834 (S/S) of 2010
Decided On: 14.9.2010
Mr. M.C. Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.P. Shah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The court upheld the validity of the transfer order as being in public interest and exigency of service, while also emphasizing the need for respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe.
Headnote:
Transfer - Writ Petition - The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the impugned transfer order, stating that the transfer was made in public interest and was exigency of service. However, directed respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash the impugned transfer order, arguing that the transfer was against the terms of transfer policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit but directed respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the transfer order and whether it was in line with the transfer policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the transfer was made in public interest and was exigency of service, thus dismissing the petition. However, it directed respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, but respondent No.2 was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks.
(Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.)
Heard Mr. M.C. Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Shah, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5-7-2010 passed by respondent No.2, Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, and the impugned order dated 26.8.2010, passed by respondent No.4, Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.
3. Perusal of impugned transfer order shows that the petitioner was transferred within District and the transfer was made in public interest. He was relieved on 26-8-2010. The transfer is exigency of service. The petitioner was serving in Haldwani Base Hospial since five years and as per Govt. Policy he might be transferred to another place. I do not find any good ground to stay the impugned transfer.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a submission before the court that there are some other Pharmacists also in the Base Hospital, who are working prior to the petitioner and instead of transferring them the petitioner has been transferred which is against the terms of transfer policy. He therefore urged that the respondents be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, which is already filed with respondent No.2.
5. In view of above, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
6. However, the respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking and reasoned order thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without being influenced by the order of this court.
