High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 07 J&K CK 0012

Abdul Majeed Rather vs State of J&K & others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 12 July 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tashi Rabstan
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
2465 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 350 words
1.

Petitioner is working as Head Assistant in respondent department and presently posted in the office of Executive Engineer, Sub Transmission

Division, Bemina, Srinagar (respondent no.4). It is pleaded that some five months back, vide Order no.CE/M&RE/86 of 2017 dated 7.7.2017,

respondent no.3, who is also Head of the Department of respondent department, effected transfers, which included petitioner, whereby petitioner

was transferred to Sub Transmission Division Ganderbal. Further submission in writ petition is that vide order no.CE/M&RE/255 of 2017 dated

24.11.2017, again transferred petitioner from Sub Transmission Division, Ganderbal, to Sub Transmission Division, 1st Srinagar. However, only

after four days, respondent no.2, according to petitioner, without having any jurisdiction, has issued order no.275-DCP of 2017 dated

29.11.2017, transferring petitioner from present place of posting. It is this order, of which petitioner is aggrieved and throws challenge thereto on

the grounds set out in writ petition on hand.

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner states that respondent no.2 has exceeded his jurisdiction while issuing order, impugned in the petition, inasmuch

as it is within the domain of respondent no.3 to pass such orders. Learned counsel for petitioner, in his last limb of arguments, states that petitioner

would feel satisfied in the event writ petition is disposed of directing respondent no.1 to give a fresh look to the case of petitioner and till such

consideration is accorded, petitioner may be allowed to perform her duties at present place of posting. To this, learned counsel for respondents

states that petitioner''s case would be considered in strict accordance with rules governing the field.

3.

Writ petition, in view of grounds urged coupled with submissions made by learned counsel for parties, is disposed of with a direction to

respondent no.1 to give a fresh look to the case of petitioner qua order no.275-DCP of 2017 dated 29.11.2017 issued by respondent no.2 and

pass appropriate orders, accordingly, in light of averments made in petition, annexures appended thereto within a period of ten days from the date

certified copy of this order is served upon respondent no.1. Till then status quo as on date be maintained. Disposed of.