GH RASOOL MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Gh Rasool Mir
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HEARD .
(2.) PETITIONER is an employee of Horticulture Department. He was given promotion as Horticulture/Technician III alongwith other employees
in February, 1999 and asked to report for duty to Chief Horticulture
Officer, Kupwara pursuant to promotion order No. 129/Eof 1999 dated:
13.2.1999. Subsequently he was under orders of Chief Horticulture Officer, Kupwara relieved and directed to report to Chief Horticulture
Officer, Sopore for posting under order dated: 10.5.1999. Later on under
orders of Dy. Director Horticulture, Central Srinagar, dated: 15.5.1999
petitioner was to be retained at Kupwara and in his place junior most
Horticulture -Technician -lll to be relieved to report for duty to Chef
Horticulture Officer, Baramulla (Annexure -E). Again on 5.6.1999, the same
officer from Directorate of Horticulture Central Srinagar, Kupwara to
retain and utilize services of petitioner as technician -Ill in Kupwara
District for a period of six months or till further orders, whichever is
earlier. This order (Annexure -F) is impugned and sought to be quashed so
as to allow the petitioner to continue as Technician -Ill at Kupwara.
(3.) DESPITE opportunities respondents have not filed objections. However, Mr. Attar, AAG submits that as the life of the impugned order
(Annexure -F) is over, therefore, writ itself has become fruitless for the
petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner conceeds that the impugned order
(Annexure -F) was in operation for a period of six months or till further
orders whichever is earlier. This order was passed on 5.6.1999. No other
order was passed during or before the end of said period of six months.
The period of six months has expired on 4.12.1999. Thus impugned order
has become extinct. Obviously the court cannot accept to adjudicate or
pronounce upon the legal rights and obligation based on an order which
has spent its life and become extinct, it is further found that the
grounds urged in support of the impugned order are not based on legal
terra -firma. The order of transfer and that too on promotion cannot be
viewed in any case as a punishment meted to the petitioner, merely
because one or two orders have been passed in succession to indicate
different posting or that such postings have lasted for different
durations, so long the transfer is to meet exigencies of service and to
serve interests of administration. The order is not arbitrary or
discriminatory on that count. The order is not found to suffer from any
jurisdictional error. After all a Govt. servant holding a transferable
post has no vested right to seek posting to one or other place. He is
liable to be transferred so long transfer is construed as an incident of
service. The transfer of a Govt. employee is a normal feature and just an
incident of service. It is not shown that the order is malafide of
service. It is not shown that the order is malafide or in violation of
any statutory rule. In such circumstances, transfer in question is not
open to challenge under Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. The
Annexure -F itself shows that the impugned order was passed at the
instance and on the suggestion of Chief Horticulture Officer, Kupwara.
The order does not reveal that the order in any manner impinges upon
public interest or administrative exigencies.
In result writ petition is dismissed at threshhold.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.