High Court of Meghalaya
Shri Chibor Shullai vs . Union Of India & Ors. on 28 October, 2022
Serial No. 02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 443 of 2022
Date of Decision: 28.10.2022
Shri Chibor Shullai Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Ahmed, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Mr. S. Shangrit, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Mr. S. Shangrit,
learned counsel is present and accepts notice on behalf of all the
respondents, so no further notice is called for.
3. The present writ petition is a second round of litigation
where by on the orders of this Court, the respondents had considered
the representation filed by the writ petitioner with regard to his posting
and transfer.
4. The earlier order dated 14.10.2022, had been passed in
consideration of the submissions of the writ petitioner that he was not
allowed to represent against the movement order. Para-7 of the order
dated 14.10.2022 for convenience is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"7. In this view of the matter, as the petitioner has not
been afforded an opportunity to reply to the said
communication, he is permitted to file a representation
within 1(one) week from today, and the respondents are
to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a
period of 2(two) weeks, thereafter. Status quo as granted
earlier with regard to the movement of the petitioner
shall be maintained till disposal of the representation."
5. Today, Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the representation was duly filed as evident from the
Annexure to the writ petition, and the reply thereof rejecting the same
on 25.10.2022, is also annexed.
6. The reasons given therein for rejection was that the letter
under reference, to which the writ petitioner pleaded ignorance was a
Policy letter which is not addressed individually, and as per the
Standard Policy, the letter was to be uploaded on the MES Website for
information of all, and therefore the contention of the writ petitioner
that he was not aware of the same could not be accepted. It is further
noted in the order dated 25.10.2022, that the prayer for deferment could
not be granted, as the representation was received after issuing of the
postings, which if accepted would be in violation of Cadre Management
of MES Civilian Officers, Guidelines, 2015.
7. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI has also made submissions
with regard to grounds taken by the respondents for rejection of the
representation.
8. Transfer matters are usually not interfered with by Courts
as they are made in exigency of service and only when the same is mala
fide or done so as a punitive measure in some cases, on extraneous
circumstances, Courts may interfere.
9. In the instant case, it is noted that the writ petitioner seeks
to resist the transfer, although he has already spent a considerable time
in the present station. Notwithstanding the health condition of his wife,
transfer being an exigency of service, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the same.
10. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has made
an additional prayer for issuance of a fresh movement order to facilitate
posting and transfer.
11. The prayer is allowed.
12. With the above noted directions, this writ petition stands
closed and is accordingly disposed of.
13. However, before parting with the records, it is made clear
that the dismissal of the this writ petition will not bar the respondents
from sympathetically considering the case of the petitioner on other
grounds.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
28.10.2022
"V. Lyndem-PS"
