High CourtsSingle Bench(1989) 10 RAJ CK 0023

K.C. Nawaria vs Rajasthan Housing Board

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 19 October 1989 · Citation: (1989) 2 RLW 426 : (1990) 1 WLN 547

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.C. Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 2462 of 1989

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

4 paragraphs · 263 words

N.C. Sharma, J.—This is a writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by K.C. Nawaria for setting aside the transfer order Annexure-II dated June 29, 1989 whereby the petitioner, who is an Assistant employed in Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, has been transferred from Jaipur to Alwar against a vacant post.

2.

The petitioner''s case is that he joined as Junior Assistant on July 19, 1980 in Rajasthan Housing Board at Jaipur. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant in 1986 and transferred to Jodhpur on May 17, 1988. This is a mis-statement, because Annexure-I is a transfer order from Jodhpur to Jaipur. The petitioner has pleaded that his parents are old and to not maintain good health. If is stated that they were suffering from Asthama and T.B. respectively and they were under treatment since 1985. Hi has cow been transferred on June 29, 1989 to Alwar.

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in this petition on July 6, 1989. I fail to understand that how this order helps the petitioner in which it is recognised that ordinarily the Court should not interfere in the matter of transfer. this Court is not a "Charity Home" where the postings are made on the basis of convenience or choice. The petitioner is sticking at Jaipur and nobody can be allowed to stick. He has go and no relief on such frivolous petition can be granted by this Court.

4.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with cost to the respondent.