# Munna Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 408
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-23
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 9690 of 2020
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/munna-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45908
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C.
7 All. Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
409
Service Matter - Transfer - Petitioner
working as Assistant Clerk in the office of
C.M.O. transferred from Lakhimpur Kheri
to Pilibhit - as a matter of policy, persons
working for more than 25 years were
transfered out - Held - petitioner having
already served in Lakhimpur Kheri for
about 28 years, cannot be permitted to
continue in the same Division as per the
policy & in public interest - no illegality or
irrationality in the transfer order (Para 13)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of cases cited

## Text

408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
U.P. And 4 others and Karnataka Public
Service Commission and Ors. Vs. B.M.
Vijaya Shankar and Ors. reported in
AIR 1992 SC 952, the petition was
dismissed. I do not wish to burden my
judgment by quoting or refering to them
again. However, paragraphs 18 and 20 of
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra) are
quoted as under:-

"18. In so far as the cases cited
by the learned counsel for the petitioners
are concerned, the same will not help the
petitioners since in large number of cases
observations were duly made by different
Division Benches of this Court that in case
any mistake
was
committed
by
the
candidates
during
the
course
of
examination, the writ court will not
interfere in the matter.

20. The error committed by the
candidates cannot be said to be human in
nature. The petitioners should have read
the instructions that were issued time and
again and should have correctly filled the
entries relating to the marks obtained by
them in their previous examinations. The
contention that this was an error committed
by the Computer Operator cannot simply
be accepted. If the Courts were to accept
such a plea of the petitioners, then this
would result in a situation where the
petitioners would get the benefit of a wrong
if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if
noticed the petitioners could always turn
around and claim that this was a result of a
human error. Each candidate necessarily
must bear the consequences of his failure to
fill up the application form correctly. From
perusal of the record, I am of the opinion
that the error/errors committed by the
petitioners are neither minor nor are
human error/errors."(Emphasis Supplied)

11. Insofar as the observation of
Hon'ble Division Bench in Raghuvendra
Pratap Singh (Supra) is concerned, the
same are of no help to the petitioner as
admittedly, the question of claim of
Shiksha
Mitras
to
grant
benefit
of
weightage in the 1981 Rules was under
consideration and, thus, the said judgment
turns on its own facts and is clearly not
applicable in this case in the light of the
facts of this case and the issue involved
herein. Insofar as claiming the benefit of
horizontal reservation under the Physically
Handicapped Quota is concerned, this
column always existed in recruitment
process and once it has not been claimed at
the initial stage, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to claim reservation under the
special category, provision for disclosure
whereof was provided at the initial stage
itself.

12. The petition is devoid of merits
and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)07ILR A408
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Service Single No. 9690 of 2020

Munna Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ravi Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
7 All. Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
409
Service Matter - Transfer - Petitioner
working as Assistant Clerk in the office of
C.M.O. transferred from Lakhimpur Kheri
to Pilibhit - as a matter of policy, persons
working for more than 25 years were
transfered out - Held - petitioner having
already served in Lakhimpur Kheri for
about 28 years, cannot be permitted to
continue in the same Division as per the
policy & in public interest - no illegality or
irrationality in the transfer order (Para 13)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of cases cited

1. Tushar D Bhatt Vs St. of Guj & anr. (2009) 11
SCC 678

2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs Damodar
Prasad Pandey & ors. (2004) 12 SCC 299

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition,
the petitioner has assailed the order dated
11.03.2020 as well as the impugned transfer
order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the opposite
party No.2 in respect of the petitioner. The
petitioner is working on the post of Assistant
Clerk in the office of Chief Medical Officer,
Lakhimpur Kheri and has been transferred from
Lakhimpur Kheri to Pilibhit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that he has preferred a writ petition
being writ petition No. 36805 (SS) of 2019
challenging the aforesaid order and by means of
order dated 03.01.2020 this Court was pleased
to disposed of the writ petition by passing
following order:-

"Considering the innocuous prayer
being made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and without entering into the merits
of the case, the opposite party No.2, i.e.
Director
(Administration)
Directorate
of
Director General, Medical & Health Services,
U.P. Lucknow is directed to decide the
representation dated 1st July, 2019 by reasoned
and speaking order within with period of three
weeks from the date a copy of this order is
produced before him. Final decision by the
authority concerned may be taken keeping in
view the recommendations made by Chief
Medical Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri vide letter
dated 1st July, 2019."

4. In pursuance to the direction of this
Court, the representation was duly considered
and a finding was recorded that petitioner has
been posted in the Division since 24.08.1989
and therefore he has been transferred out from
the Division and his representation was
accordingly rejected.

5. The petitioner again approached
this Court by filing a writ petition being
writ petition No. 2082 (SS) of 2020
challenging the rejection order dated
15.01.2020 and this Court by means of
order
dated
28.01.2020
passed
the
following order:-

"The petitioner is given liberty to
prefer a fresh representation taking all
pleas and grounds available to him
enclosing therewith copies of relevant
documents,
which
are
necessary
for
disposal of the representation along with
certified copy of the order of this Court for
perusal and necessary orders."

6. The grievance in the present writ
petition is that by means of the impugned
order dated 11.03.2020 the case of the
petitioner has been examined by the
respondents again and has been rejected.
By means of the impugned order dated
11.03.2020 it has been categorically stated
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that petitioner worked from 24.08.1989 to
14.09.2015 in District Lakhimpur Kheri
and from 15.09.2015 to 03.07.2017 in
District
Saharanpur
and
again
since
04.07.2017 till his present transfer was
working in District Lakhimpur Kheri and
therefore till date he has worked for around
28 years in the said Division, while persons
who have worked over 25 years have been
transferred out.

7. The petitioner has assailed the
rejection
order
on
various
grounds
including that there is no mention in the
transfer order that whether it has been
passed in public interest or on the
administrative grounds. It has also been
submitted that the period of stay in
Lakhimpur has been incorrectly recorded
as on the aforesaid ground submitted that
he should be allowed to continue at
Lakhimpur Kheri.

8.

Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel on the other hand
submits that petitioner is liable to be
transferred any where in State of U.P. and
it is clear from a perusal of various orders
passed in pursuance to the direction
issued in this Court that he has served in
Lakhimpur Kheri for over 28 years and as
a matter of policy person working for
more than 25 years have been transfered
out of the State and accordingly the
petitioner has also been transferred out.

9. He further submits that petitioner
does not have any right to stay at
Lakhimpur
Kheri
and
there
is
no
violation of any statute or any law in
passing of the transfer order and even
otherwise on the direction of this Court
the authorities have duly considered the
case of the petitioner twice already and
all aspects have been duly considered and
therefore the petition lacks merit and
deserves to be rejected.

10. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

11. The law with regard to the
transfer has been made abundantly clear
from the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in
the Case of Tushar D Bhatt Vs. State of
Gujarat and another (2009) 11 SCC 678
held as under:-

"17. In the instant case the entire
tenure of more than 18 years, the appellant
was only transferred twice. The appellant's
transfer order cannot be termed as mala
fide. The appellant was not justified in
defying the transfer order and to level
allegations against his superiors and
remaining unauthorisedly absent from
official
duties
from
11.10.1999
to
27.04.2000 i.e. more than six months. In
the interest of discipline of any institution
or organization such an approach and
attitude of the employees cannot be
countenanced.

18. In Gujarat Electricity Board
Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani this Court
had an occasion to examined the case of
almost similar nature. This Court observed
as under:

 "4. ......"Transfer from one
place to another is necessary in public
interest and efficiency in the public
administration. Whenever, a public servant
is transferred he must comply with the
order but if there be any genuine difficulty
in proceeding on transfer it is open to him
to make representation to the competent
authority
for
stay,
modification
or
cancellation of the transfer order. If the
order of transfer is not stayed, modified or
7 All. Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
411
cancelled the concerned public servant
must carry out the order of transfer. In the
absence of any stay of the transfer order a
public servant has no justification to avoid
or evade the transfer order merely on the
ground of having made a representation, or
on the ground of his difficulty in moving
from one place to the other. If he fails to
proceed on transfer in compliance to the
transfer order, he would expose himself to
disciplinary action under the relevant
Rules, as has happened in the instant case.
The respondent lost his service as he
refused to comply with the order of his
transfer from one place to the other."

19. In Mithilesh Singh v. Union
of India and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1724,
the
settled
legal
position
has
been
reiterated. The court held that absence from
duty without proper intimation is indicated
to be a grave offence warranting removal
from service"

12. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the
Case
of
Kendriya
Vidyalaya
Sangathan Vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey
and others (2004) 12 SCC 299 held as
under:-

"4.
Transfer
which
is
an
incidence of service is not to be interfered
with by the Courts unless it is shown to be
clearly arbitrary or vitiated by malafide or
infraction of any prescribed norms of
principles governing the transfer (see
Ambani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa,
(Suppl) 4 SCC 169). Unless the order of
transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made
in violation of operative guidelines, the
Court cannot interfere with it. (see Union
of India vs. S.L. Abbas 1993 AIR(SC) 2444.
Who should be transferred and posted
where is a matter for the administrative
authority to decide. Unless the order of
transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made
in violation of operative any guidelines or
rules the courts should not ordinarily
interfere with it. In Union of India & Ors.
Janardan Debanath & Anr. 2004 (4) SCC
245 it was observed as follows:

"No
government
servant
or
employee of a public undertaking has any
legal right to be posted forever at any one
particular place or place of his choice
since transfer of a particular employee
appointed to the class or category of
transferable posts from one place to
another is not only an incident, but a
condition of service, necessary too in
public interest and efficiency in the public
administration. Unless an order of transfer
is shown to be an outcome of mala fide
exercise or stated to be in violation of
statutory provisions prohibiting any such
transfer, the courts or the tribunals
normally cannot interfere with such orders
as a matter of routine, as though they were
the appellate authorities substituting their
own
decision
for
that
of
the
employer/management, as against such
orders
passed
in
the
interest
of
administrative exigencies of the service
concerned. This position was highlighted
by this Court in National Hydroelectric
Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan
(2001) 8 SCC 574".

13. The petitioner on two earlier
occasions had approached this Court,
whereby a direction was given to the
authorities to consider his representation.
The authorities have passed a reasoned and
speaking
order
and
rejected
the
representation
of
the
petitioner.
The
petitioner
having
already
served
in
Lakhimpur Kheri for about 28 years,
cannot be permitted to continue in the same
Division
as
per
the policy of
the
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondents and the public interest is self
evident from the facts of the case as well as
the orders passed by the respondents.

14. In the instant case the matter has
been thoroughly examined by this Court as
well as the respondent authorities.

15. I am of the considered opinion that
there is no illegality or irrationality in the
impugned transfer order dated 29.06.2019 as
well as the impugned order of rejection of the
representation of petitioner dated 11.03.2020.
The respondents have duly considered the
case of the petitioner and gave adequate
reasons for the same. It is also surprising that
the petitioner having been transferred in June,
2019 is still continuing at Lakhimpur Kheri
without there being any interim order in his
favour.

16. Considering the totality of the facts
and circumstances of the case, no interference
in the case is called for.

17. The petition lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed. The respondents are
expected to relieve the petitioner immediately
so that he can join at transferred place of
posting.

18. However, it is provided that in case
petitioner joins to his the transferred place of
posting within a period of two weeks from
the date of production of a certified copy of
this order, then no coercive action shall be
taken against him.
----------
(2020)07ILR A412
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 1993

Ram Ji ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
S.P. Shukla, Sri Rakesh Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 324,
307/34-challenge
to-appellant
remaining part of his sentence-All the
witnesses of fact PW1 ,PW2 and PW4
clearly specify the role of the appellantmedical report corroborated with the
oral testimony of the PW1 and PW2their evidence has a ring of truth-Hence,
trial

court
rightly
convicted
the
appellant u/s 324 IPC-since incident
occurred
more
than
33
year
agopresently appellant is aged about 60
years and during intervening period, he
had not indulged into any criminal
activity
nor
he
had
any
criminal
background-submission
for
showing
leniency
regarding
sentence
of
the
appellant at this stage, is liable to be
accepted.(Para 2 to 20)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:

1. Dalip Singh & ors Vs St. of Punj., (1953) AIR
SC 364

2. Masalti & ors Vs St. of U.P., (1965) AIR SC
202

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred
against the judgement and order passed by
Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur
Nagar dated 28.4.1993, in Sessions Trial
No. 567 of 1991 convicting and sentencing
the appellant u/s 324 IPC to undergo two