GH RASOOL MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-1999-12-12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on December 03,1999

Gh Rasool Mir Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.