Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 590 UK

        THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                             Writ Petition (S/S) No. 362 of 2021


Sanjay Kumar                                                                                ....... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & others
                                                                                          ......Respondents


Present: Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. Sushil Vashishta, Standing Counsel with Mr. V.S. Rawat, Brief Holder for the State/respondents.




                                                         Judgment

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to transfer

the petitioner in either of the schools (1) Government Inter

College, Ladhora, Haridwar, (2) Government Inter College,

Nizampur, Haridwar on the ground of acute heart ailment of wife

of petitioner which has been verified by the State Medical Board.

(ii) To issue such other suitable writ, order or direction

which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

(iii) To award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is posted as Lecturer

(Physics) in Government Inter College, Koruba, Block Kalsi, District

Dehradun. Since he is posted at a distance from his home district, he is

unable to look after his family, especially, his wife who is under

treatment. It is the case of the petitioner that his wife is suffering with

various diseases. Therefore, the petitioner made a detailed

representation on 02.10.2020 before the Director School Education for

his transfer to schools at Government Inter College, Ladhora,

Haridwar and Government Inter College, Nizampur, Haridwar, but it

has not been considered.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

4. This Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for

the petitioner as to which legal right of the petitioner has been

infringed, which occasioned him to approach this Court. To it, there is

no answer. The only argument which is being advanced is that the

petitioner's wife is sick and she needs regular look after by her

husband.

5. This may not be a ground to entertain the petition like the

instant one. Undoubtedly, if the petitioner has some grievances with

regard to his work and life balance, he may approach the competent

authority, and if it is done, this Court has no doubt that the competent

authority would consider such a representation.

6. The instant petition has no merit and it deserves to be

dismissed.

7. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.03.2021 AR/