Allahabad High Court
Kuldeep Kumar Rajpoot vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 28 June, 2021
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15104 of 2020
Petitioner :- Kuldeep Kumar Rajpoot
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. None for the petitioner, though link was sent to Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Sri Siddharth Singh Shrinet, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the transfer order dated 08.12.2020 passed by respondent no.4 and consequential order of relieving dated 09.12.2020 passed by respondent no.5, whereby, petitioner, who is working as 'Gram Panchayat Adhikari' has been transferred from Development Block, Keeratpur to Development Block, Noorpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been arbitrarily transferred to a distance of 60 kms. without there-being any rhyme or reason behind such transfer except to harass the petitioner. It is mentioned in the petition itself that petitioner has been transferred with a motivated and mala fide reasons in utter violation of the transfer policy as transfer is made during the Covid-19 period.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State, in his turn submits that, in fact, decision to transfer the applicant was taken on administrative grounds. It is submitted that, in fact, distance between Development Block, Keeratpur to Development Block, Noorpur is only 50 kms. and not 60 kms. as has been mentioned by the petitioner. He places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. S.S. Kourav and others; AIR 1995 SC 1056, wherein, it has been held that "the courts or tribunals are not appellate forums to decide the transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the court or tribunals are not expected to interdict the working for the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administrative to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundations. In this case, we have seen that on the administrative grounds, the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place."
5. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. Vs. Siya Ram in Appeal (Civil) No.5005 of 2004, wherein, it is held that "Courts are not required to carry out factual adjudication as to ascertain whether the transfer was made in public interest or not."
6. It is submitted that though mala fides have been alleged, but no specific incidence of mala fides have been brought to the notice by filing affidavit and, therefore, requirements of law in case of N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others; 1994 (6) SCC 98 is not made out.
7. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit and has tried to controvert the contentions put forth in the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, but the fact of the matter is that, transfer is an incidence of service. Once a transfer is made in the interest of an exigency of service, then it cannot be said that merely because petitioner has been transferred, that will amount to existence of element to prove mala fide.
8. As far as plea of ban of transfers during Covid-19 period is concerned, petitioner has enclosed copy of the Government Order dated 12th May, 2020 as Annexure-5 to the petition, in which ban was for the session 2020-21 and petitioner has not brought any document on record to demonstrate that this ban has been extended to the Session 2021-22 and, therefore, in absence of any document on record to show that when impugned order of transfer was passed, then ban was in operation and was not relaxed as was imposed vide order dated 12th May, 2020, petitioner is not entitled to take advantage of any such ban. Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.6.2021
Ashutosh
