Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42565 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rakesh Krishna Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ghazala Bano Quadri Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel.
Petitioner was send on deputation as an Accountant in the District
Horticulture Department. Though he is an employee of District
Village Development, he was transferred in 2009. He filed a writ
petition before this Court and this Court has granted interim order
and directed the competent authority to consider the claim of the
petitioner. The claim was rejected. Then he again filed a writ
petition before this Court and this Court has directed the authority
to consider the issue in view of the ailment of the petitioner.
Now the order impugned has been passed by the competent
authority holding therein that petitioner was attached as an
accountant to District Horticulture Department, but his parent
department is different. The officer of horticulture department has
intimated that there is no requirement of any Accountant in his
office, therefore, the petitioner may be sent back. Further finding
has been recorded that petitioner after recovering from ailment has
been posted to a proper place and ultimately rejected the claim of
the petitioner.
I have considered the issue and perused the record. It is to be noted
that this is the third inning of the petitioner in this Court. Now the
competent authority i.e. Commissioner has passed a very detailed
and reasoned order holding therein that it was only an attachment
and it was not the regular posting of petitioner to another
department as an accountant and the officer-in-charge of the
attached department has clearly intimated that there is no
requirement of any accountant in his office. In such circumstances,
an order of transfer has been passed. In my opinion, if in a case of
order of transfer the competent authority has considered the issue
by giving reasons, therefore, in my opinion, there should not be
any interference by this Court while exercising power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settle law that transfer
is an exigency of service.
In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in this petition.
It is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.7.2010
Sazia