CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13700 OF 2009 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 03, 2009
Dr.Ram Niwas Yadav
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
A Veterinary Surgeon transferred to Rewari has filed this
writ petition to impugn the order, cancelling his posting to Rewari by
alleging that this has been done on account of political influence of
respondent No.3, the Irrigation Minister, to retain respondent No.4 at
Rewari.
Respondent No.4 is statedly serving at Rewari for 3 years
and 7 months, which, as per the petitioner, is against the policy
instructions. On 16.11.2005, he was again transferred to Rewari as
SDO (AH). He was promoted as Deputy Director, State Cattle
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13700 OF 2009 :2:
Breeding Project, Hisar, and was transferred to Hisar on 5.6.2007. It
is alleged that on account of his political connection with respondent
No.3, he was transferred to Rewari within a period of two months on
1.8.2007. The petitioner, who is also working as Deputy Director,
Animal Husbandry & Dairying, was transferred from Kaithal to Rewari
on 26.8.2009 in place of respondent No.4. His is a couple case as
his wife is serving in the Education Department at Rewari. On
27.8.2009, the petitioner joined at Rewari. On 28.8.2009, this transfer
order of the petitioner was cancelled and in his place, respondent
No.4 again adjusted at Rewari on the asking of OSD to Chief
Minister. A note in this regard is annexed with the petition as
Annexure P-7 and it reads as under:-
“CM has desired that the transfer orders of Dr.O.P.Yadav,
Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Deptt., Rewari to
Kaithal may be cancelled.”
The petitioner has, thus, filed this writ petition to
challenge the order cancelling his transfer, alleging malafide against
respondent No.3 and being on account of political interference. In
support of his stand, the petitioner has referred to the judgments in
the cases of Kulwant Kaur Vs. Ch.Suraj Bhan & others, 1991 (1)
RSJ 39, Smt.Sanotash Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others,
1999 (3) RSJ 253, R.K.MIttal Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2004 (4)
RSJ 256 and Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1999 (3)
RSJ 90.
Apparently, political influence is at play in matters of
these transfers and cancellations. Whether this is done for an
administrative reason to keep respondent No.4 at Rewari or due to
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13700 OF 2009 :3:
his close links with respondent No.3 can not be clearly made out. It is
not case set up by the petitioner that respondent No.3 has any ill will
against him. As per the averment, respondent No.4 is related to
respondent No.3. The transfer, however, has been cancelled as per
the dictates on behalf of Chief Minister. The petitioner apparently is
disturbed as his chance to be with his wife is gone. Perhaps because
of this he had joined at Rewari hurriedly within a day. The reason
for cancellation of this transfer is not connected with any bias or
malafide against the petitioner. At best, it is to keep respondent No.4
at Rewari. It may be due to an administrative requirement. May be, it
is to favour respondent No.4 but it is not attributed to any bias
against the petitioner. There is no malafide either alleged or made
out on the part of respondent No.3 against the petitioner for which
this transfer was cancelled. Courts should restrain from interfering in
administrative matters like transfers except in those rare cases where
malafide or ulterior motives are clearly established. The petitioner
has not made any allegation against the Chief Minister or respondent
No.3 for being biased against him. The petitioner has only alleged
that his transfer has been cancelled at the instance of respondent
No.3 to keep respondent No.4 at Rewari. That in itself is no proof of
bias or malafide on the part of respondent No.3 against the
petitioner.
Thus, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner would
not be relevant. Kulwant Kaur’s case (supra) was a case where
transfer was challenged on account of malafides levelled against
Revenue Minister. The transfer order was accordingly cancelled.
Similarly in the case of Smt.Santosh Sharma (supra), the allegation
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13700 OF 2009 :4:
of malafides against the Minister for her transfer was made. In the
said case, in addition it was noticed that the husband of the petitioner
was transferred to a place where there was neither a post nor a
student in the College, where he could teach Military Science.
R.K.Mittal’s case (supra) was a case of transfer after issuance of a
Model Code of Conduct. It was observed that State Government was
not competent to issue transfer order without prior clearance of the
Election Commission. This, if pressed may effect the very transfer of
the petitioner, which is cancelled. That was not a case of cancellation
of any transfer. The facts in the case of Kamaljit Singh (supra) would
also not apply to a situation at hand as there the transfer was from
Bank to Bank after getting approval of the Registrar, Cooperative
Society but the transfer order was cancelled without approval from
the Registrar. It was so observed that there were certain rights
accruing to the petitioner. In the present case, upon transfer to
Rewari, the petitioner certainly has not come to acquire any right for
which he was required to be served with a notice. Except for
expressing dismay at the manner in which the transfers are being
ordered and managed using political influence, this Court would wish
to refrain from invoking jurisdiction in such like administrative
matters, where infringements of rights as such may not be involved.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
September 03, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE