GHULAM UD DIN Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Girdhawar Qanoongo has been transferred by the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir vide order bearing No. Div. Com Estt K 132 of 2000 dated January 20, 2000 which is impugned by the medium of this writ petition. The respondents have filed objections to the admissibility of writ petition to which, the petitioner has reacted through a CMP accompanied by an affidavit seeking permission to read it in opposition to the objections of the State. Mr. G. Ali is averse to the motion but has no objection if the petition is finally disposed of at this very stage. In this view of the matter, I admit this writ petition to hearing. Mr. G. Ali adopts the objections filed by him as counter and the affidavit sought to be filed by the petitioner is taken on record, treating it to be the rejoinder and the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The transfer of a Government servant is a normal feature of service, administrative in character and an incident of service, therefore, Courts are loathe to display indulgence, unless it is shown to be without jurisdiction or violative of statutory rules or mala fide, which are the well settled exceptions and as a corollary an aggrieved person has to be protected, if his case falls within any of these exceptions. How far these exceptions are attracted in the case in hand has to be examined in the light of grounds of challenge thrown to the order impugned.

(3.) The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the petitioner has been transferred to a village, which is at a distance of 30 kilometres from his home town. Claiming to be the father of four children, it is canvassed that the order is likely to uproot his family. Since no rule has been brought to the notice of the Court, which would suggest any violation of a condition of petitioner's service therefore, I decline to interfere, obviously, no expression of opinion in respect of merit of the ground is called for. However, it needs to be observed that in case petitioner apprehends any inconvenience he cannot seek indulgence of this Court on this ground and the proper course for him is to represent to the respondents.