Ram Sumiran vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Anil Kumar, J.—Matter is taken in revised cause list.

None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order of transfer dated 30.06.2008 ( Annexure no.1) passed by respondent no.3.

From the perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is holding transferable post.

The law is well settled that transfer being exigency of service can be effected by the employer concerned in accordance with its administrative exigency, in the interest of administration and public interest at any point of time and that cannot be monitored and guided by this Court

Further a government employee or any servant of a public undertaking has no legal right to insist for being posted at any particular place. It cannot be disputed that the respondent holds a transferable post and unless specifically provided in his service conditions, he was no choice in the matter of posting.

Controversy involved in the present case, has been also involved in the case of Pankaj Kumar and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2011 (6) ALJ 567, decided after placing reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar & another vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 3 UPLBEC 2060, in paragraphs 29 and 30 whereof it has been held as under:-

Since the Full Bench in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra) has upheld the validity of the constitution of various Police Establishment Boards by Notification dated 12.3.2008 and relying on the aforesaid Full Bench decision, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. & others v. C.P. Ravindra Singh (supra) has found that in case the transfer order has been issued with the approval of the Regional Police Establishment Board, it would not render the transfer order bad, I am of the considered opinion that in case the transfer order has been passed with the approval of the Regional Police Establishment Board, it would not render the order bad. The observation of the Court in the order dated 28.8.2010 passed in the Writ Petition No. 3838 (S/S) of 2010 is to be read in the manner that the approval of the Police Establishment Board duly constituted was required. Since the validity of the Regional Police Establishment Board has been upheld and the present transfer order has been issued with the approval of the Regional Police Establishment Board, the order impugned cannot be said to be bad in law merely because it was observed by the Court in its order dated 28.8.2010 that the approval of the Board constituted by the Notification dated 12.3.2008 was required.

In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. The petitioners are holding a transferable post. Transfer is an incident of service. They are supposed to work any where in the State of U.P. The petitioners have no right to claim their posting at a particular place.

Further, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. C. P. Ravindra Singh & Ors., 2011 (2) ADJ 177 (DB), while setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that in case the transfer orders have been passed on the basis of approval of the Regional Police Establishment Boards there is no illegality.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality, infirmity in the impugned order 30.06.2008 ( Annexure no.1) passed by respondent no.3 under challenge in the present writ petition, thus, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

No order as to costs.