DINESH KUMAR UPADHYAYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted that the petitioner was allotted Manipur-Tripura Cadre vide order dated 12-6-89. Certain incidents of terrorism occurred and petitioner thereafter applied for change of the cadre. Though Tripura-Madhya Pradesh agreed for changing the cadre but the same was not permitted by the Central Govt. The petitioner had filed writ petition in the High Court of M.P. bearing No. W.P. 6165/98 which was dismissed by the High Court of M.P. on 22-1-99. The order passed by the High Court of M.P. while dismissing the petition is as under :--

(2.) Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation. The said representation was decided and the communication was given to the petitioner on 17-8-2000 (Annexure P-13). Petitioner thereafter approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. 876/2000. Learned Member of the Tribunal after quoting the decision of the Division Bench of High Court of M.P. and considered the material available on record held that since the matter is within the policy of the Government, rejected petition by passing impugned order Annexure P-4.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and contrary to law. On the other hand learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the impugned order is just and proper and can not be interfered with in the petition. Counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the matter of Union of India and others Vs. Rajiv Yadav and others 1994 (6) SCC 38, where Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under :--