High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16118 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh,Adeeb Anwar,Satendra Tirpathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Satendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the transfer order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the office of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi to the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Sonbhadra as Senior Assistant (District Clerk Grade). A further direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-post and allow the petitioner to continue as Deputy Director Agriculture, Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi on the post of Senior Assistant. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an employee of the District Clerk Cadre, Group-C, in the Department of Agriculture, State of Uttar Pradesh and there is no provision of transferring as a District Clerk Cadre, Group-C employee from one District to another, a copy of the transfer policy has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. It has also been specifically pleaded that as per the Government Order dated 13.05.2022 only the counter in the office and allotted work of the region i.e. Tehsil in the District of an employee in the District Clerk Cadre, Group-C can be changed by the Department Head/Office Head and in furtherance thereof the transfer of the petitioner in the Agriculture Department in District Sonbhadra has been changed. It is further urged that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk on 21.09.2000 in District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi and is an employee of District Clerk Cadre, Group-C in the Department of Agriculture. The respondents has also issued the District Clerk Cadre Gradation list dated 14.01.2021, and the name of the petitioner is at serial no.787. It is further urged that the petitioner has two children, who are studying in Upardaha Degree College, Upardaha adjoining Bhadohi. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner is aged and suffering from survical and arthritis and she is under treatment in Prayagraj. It has further been pointed out that in similar matter in the case of (Mritunjay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) in Writ-A No.11894 of 2022, this Court had shown indulgence and had stayed the order of transfer dated 30.06.2022. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that the petitioner also is entitled to the similar indulgence and accordingly the impugned order of transfer deserves to be set aside. The record indicates that on 01.12.2022, the Court had directed the petitioner to furnish an affidavit stating that the petitioner is desirous to give up his claim of seniority prepared by the State- wise cadre within a week and also vide order dated 05.01.2023, a supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner indicating the names of certain other employees, who were working at the given place who were much senior to the petitioner and also at the place of posting for more than number of years than the petitioner and that the State was adopting a pick and chose method. It is in furtherance thereof that on 17.01.2023, the Court had required the learned Standing Counsel to obtain fresh instructions regarding the allegations of pick and chose as levelled against the the State for transferring the petitioner. In furtherance thereof, the learned Standing Counsel has provided the copy of the written instructions dated 27th January, 2023 and the said instructions are taken on record. The submission of learned Standing Counsel is that it is incorrect to urge that any pick and chose policy has been adopted by the State. It has been urged that in terms of the Clause 5 of the transfer policy, the State is the Authority to transfer such number of persons for better administration which may not exceed 10% of the persons in Group-C. It has also been submitted that in view of certain objections received by the employer-State for better administration, the transfer order has been passed and as such it cannot be said the the same is malafide. It is also urged that the petitioner in the instant case has been at the place of posting for more than 20 years, apart from the fact that for better administration, the order has been passed which cannot be made the subject matter of challenge as it is done by the employer to post a person at the appropriate place where the employer deems fit. In the aforesaid circumstances, it has been prayed that the order of transfer requires no interference apart from the fact that the petitioner till date has not even joined at the transferred posting despite there being no interim order of the Court and for the said reason, no indulgence is to be granted especially and the petition deserves to be dismissed. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record, this Court lately in the case of Amit Narayan Rai and 18 others Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No. 15574 of 2022 decided on 20.01.2023 had the occasion to consider the issue of transfer in detail by noticing the various pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court. Taking note of the principles as culled out from the aforesaid decision in respect of interference in a transfer order, this Court finds that it could not be demonstrated appropriately that the petitioner being a District Cadre employee cannot be transferred. It could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been at the present place of posting for more than 20 years and that despite there being no interim order passed by this Court, yet, the petitioner has taken the risk on not joining at the place of posting. The employer could have initiated which has not been done but nevertheless the conduct of the petitioner for the aforesaid reason cannot be appreciated. It is always open for the employer to exercise its discretion in appointing its employee at the place where it deems just and appropriate. The employer being best suited to judge the suitability of the employee and place him at such place and what work is to be taken cannot be interfered with by the Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction and needless to say the malafides or violation of any statutory principles or provisions has not been established. A person as a matter of right cannot claim to be placed at a place of his choice. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that there is any arbitrariness or malafides while passing the transfer order nor any violation of any rule could be pointed out, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer. However, in case if the petitioner approaches the petitioner within a period of two weeks, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to join failing which it shall be open for the Authority concerned to take appropriate action against the petitioner as it may deem appropriate after joining it shall be open for the petitioner move a representation to the Authority considering his request regarding his transfer on account of the education of his children which shall be decided by the Authority within ten days of receiving the representation in accordance with law.
Decision
For the reasons as detailed hereinabove, this Court does not find any merit in the petition, accordingly, it is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 30.1.2023 Asheesh Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad