Excelsior Correspondent
Jammu, July 25: In a petition, petitioner who was posted as TSO Poonch on April 25, 2013 by order of Director CAPD and on April 27, 2013 keeping the order of April 25, 2013 in abeyance, challenged, the same in High Court.
In the petition, petitioner has assailed the impugned order firstly, on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and seemingly has been passed for political reasons. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed with extraneous consideration and infringes petitioner’s fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further it is contended that the impugned order is violative of the Government Transfer Policy issued vide Government order No. 861-GAD of 2010 dated 28.07.2010.
Justice Janak Raj Kotwal after hearing Adv Rameshwar P Sharma appearing for the petitioner whereas Govt Advocate Monish Chopra appearing for the state respondents, observed that in the given situation, it was required of the respondents to State as to what had necessitated keeping the order of the petitioner in abeyance and what interest of administration has been served by such administrative decision. The respondents having failed to disclose before this court the purpose and administrative interest involved in keeping the order of the petitioner’s transfer in abeyance, arbitrariness in the decision is writ large and cannot be justified by a mere say that to pass order of premature transfer is prerogative of the Government or the Director, CA&PD. Arbitrariness and favoritism in the decision would be strengthened, if it is true that the private respondent has been allowed to continue discharging functions as TSO, Poonch and not relieved to join as Incharge TSO, Mendhar.
With these observations, High Court directed the respondents to relieve the private respondent forthwith from the post of TSO, Poonch, if not relieved so far and allow the petitioner to discharge the functions against the said post.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel