- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner has challenged two orders dated 9th Novem ber, 1998 contained in Annexures 1 and 2 to this writ petition. By the impugned order contained in Annexure 1, the Upri Ganga Nahar Adhunikikaran Khand has been restructured as Gun Niyantran Khand, Basti and is being shifted 10 Basti. By the second order, the charge was directed to be handed over in accordance with the provisions made in the said order. Relying on these two orders, learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma contends that on account of such restructuring, the petitioner would be transferred. Such transfer will affect adversely on the petitioner since his wife is suffering from Kidney problem. There fore, according to him, these two orders should be quashed.
(2.) MR. I. S. Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand opposes the said contention on the ground that if for administrative reasons the project is trans ferred or reorganized or restructured, the same does not confer any right on an in dividual employee to challenge the same, even if such restructuring affects him and causes any hardship. Therefore, according to him, the writ petition is misconceived. Mr. Sharma however, relied upon a decision in the case of S. C. Duggal v. Department of Personnel & Ors. , to support his contention that the petitioner having made a representation, he could not be transferred without considering the same. He also contends that in similar cir cumstances, this Court was pleased to stay the order of transfer. One such order is mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ peti tion, wherein it is stated that an order was passed in writ petition No. 17811 of 1998, relying on an order dated 13th April, 1998 passed in writ petition No. 10974 of 1998. In the said order, the representation of the Ministerial Association of the Irrigation Department was directed to be considered and till such consideration, the transfer could not be implemented. I have heard both Mr. Sharma and Mr. I. S. Singh, learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) SO far as the order mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ petition is con cerned, there is nothing on record to com pare the facts of those writ petitions with that of the present petition. No material has been produced to show as to how the facts of those cases are similar to this case. Even if the question involved is raised, the same was a general order by which the entire question of shifting of the depart ment was to be reconsidered on the basis of the representation as directed in the said order by which the petitioner's case could not have been included because the petitioner has not challenged any in dividual order transferring him or posting him elsewhere. Be that as it may, the orders con tained in Annexures 1 and 2 as mentioned hereinbefore, relate to reorganizing the entire establishment on the changed cir cumstances and restructuring the same ac cording to the administrative necessity. It is for the administration to consider as to how it would reorganize or restructure its establishment for administrative pur poses. The Court cannot interfere with such administrative decisions in respect of the whole organization. If it is decided in the given facts and circumstances of the case, then the organization requires to be restructured and reorganized, in that event the Court cannot substitute its own view. It is the administration who is responsible for administering its own es tablishment. It is for them as to how the best it could be administered. The Court has no concern with the administration of the establishment of the respondents whether it could be better administered from a particular place or from any other place and it is in the absolute discretion of the administration itself with which the Court cannot interfered. How the ad ministration will run and who will take over charge on the basis of such reor ganization or restructuring, is also an ad ministrative decision, which cannot be in terfered with by the Court at the instance of a particular individual employee even if he suffers extreme hardship or incon venience. An employee is subject to the administrative decisions of restructure and reorganization of the establishment. Unless it affects his service condition, he has no right to challenge the same. In the present case no such challenge has been thrown. No such pleading has been made. The only ground on which it has been challenged is that the petitioner's wife is suffering from kidney ailment and, there fore, if the petitioner is transferred else where, it would be an extreme hardship on his part. This cannot be a ground for inter ference by this Court with the administra tive decision of restructuring of the estab lishment.;