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

2021 Supreme(UK) 368

S.K.MISHRA, NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK
Kishore Kumar Bhutani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Shakti Singh, Advocate, Anil Kumar Bisht, Advocate

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J. - Heard Mr. Shakti Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 17.12.2021 passed by respondent No. 1, which is annexed as Annexure-1 on the ground of violation of Sections 8, 9 and 17 of the Uttarakhand Public Servants Annual Transfer Act, 2017.

3. Having gone through the above provisions, this Court is of the opinion that the provisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are all directory, and not mandatory. Moreover, transfer is an incident of service. It should not be interfered by the High Court in exercise of judicial review, unless mala fide is shown, or if the transfer is in effect reducing the petitioner in rank, and similar considerations.

4. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

5. The Interim Relief Application (IA No. 1 of 2021) stands disposed of accordingly.

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top