AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter was listed before us on 6th September, 2019 when we had noted the following:
"1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 8th March, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the SWP no. 458/2019 was dismissed.
The petitioner, who was working as a Draftsman, was aggrieved by the order dated 28th February, 2019 issued by the Director, Rural Development Department, Kashmir, transferring him from REW Bandipora to REW Ganderbal.
This challenge was rejected by the learned Single Judge who has noted in the order dated 8th March, 2019 that the appellant was only transferred from District Bandipora to District Ganderbal.
The learned Single Judge has found that the writ petition was an attempt by the appellant to elude the responsibilities that are cast upon the Government servants, like the petitioner; that the J&K State has limited resources and the youth are facing alarming unemployment and they are ready to serve and work not only in any part of the Country but outside the Country as well, leaving their families here and work thousands of kilometers away from their families. The learned Single Judge has found that the petitioner cannot be permitted to make lame excuses of not working or serving the State and its people even at a distance of 20 or 30 kilometers as the petitioner is not ready and willing to work at a distance of less than 20 kilometers away from his earlier place of posting.
We also find that by the order dated 8th March, 2019, the order of transfer was found not to be a premature order and, in any case, stipulation of minimum tenure in the transfer policy at a place was not justiciable. The order of transfer was found to have been made in the interest of justice.
Though we issued notice in the appeal on 27th May, 2019, however, no stay was granted. The impugned order would have been implemented by the respondents even during the pendency of the writ petition and passing of the order of the learned Single Judge on 8th March, 2019.
This appeal, even if was to be held to be of substance, would have been rendered infructuous by efflux of time" There was no appearance on behalf of the appellant and consequently we had desisted from passing the adverse orders to enable the learned counsel for the appellant to appear in the case.
There is no appearance on behalf of the appellant when the matter is called out even today.
Having regard to the narration of facts set out hereinabove, clearly this appeal has been rendered infructuous and no orders as prayed for can be granted.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
MP 3249/2019
In view of the orders passed in the main appeal, this application does not survive for consideration and is, as such, dismissed.