High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 03 UK CK 0016

Shiv Ram vs State of Uttarakhand and Constable Prem Singh

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 16 March 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Bist, J · Prafulla C. Pant, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Special Appeal No. 29 of 2011

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

7 paragraphs · 296 words

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

2.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 117 (S/S) of 2011 whereby the writ petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed summarily.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that Appellant/writ Petitioner is a Head Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary and posted in District Udham Singh Nagar. He challenged the impugned order dated 2nd February, 2011 whereby he was transferred back to 31st Battalion of Provincial Armed Constabulary from Bomb Disposal Squad.

4.

Learned Counsel for the applicant/writ Petitioner argued that the Appellant/writ Petitioner was transferred to accommodate Respondent No. 4-Constable Prem Singh who could not have been posted in his place.

5.

However, on perusal of the papers on record, there appears no such order, which shows that to accommodate Constable Prem Singh, writ Petitioner Shiv Ram was transferred. In Para 14 of the writ petition, it is admitted that out of seven posts, three posts of Head Constable were already lying vacant, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Respondent No. 4 was transferred against the post occupied by the writ Petitioner. Learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition observing that the writ Petitioner had no indefeasible right to remain in the Bomb Disposal Squad. As to the exigency of the service, it is the authority concerned who has to see where it needs service of its employee.

6.

Having considered submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, we do not find it a fit case for interference with the order challenged before us.

7.

Therefore, the Special Appeal is dismissed summarily. Stay application No. 1510 of 2011 also stands dismissed.