H M CHAMAR Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. D. A. Bambhania raised a preliminary objection that these writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners had challenged the order of transfer earlier before this Court and the writ petition was already been dismissed. The same transfer order has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition and as such the same are not maintainable. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners made submission on merits of the case challenging the order of transfer. So far as the preliminary objection of the learned Counsel for the respondent is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners were given the right to make representation to the respondent against the order of transfer but that representation has not been decided and as such this writ petition is Maintainable. It has next been contended that the action of the respondent to defer the decision on the representation of the petitioner till they report to the new unit where they have been ordered to be transferred is wholly illegal and arbitrary. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner in paragraph 14(a) of the writ petition has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer orders Annexures 'A' and 'B'. A further prayer has been made for quashing of Annexure 'D'. The aforesaid prayer reads as under:

(3.) From the averments made in the aforesaid paragraph, it is no more in dispute that these very transfer orders have been challenged by the petitioners before this Court. The petitioners though very conveniently avoided to mention in this paragraph that in the writ petition No. 10822/95 these transfer orders were held to be valid by this Court, the petitioners filed the copy of this order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition on 21st December 1995 as Annexure "C". The order of transfer had been challenged by the petitioner in the previous writ petition on the ground that it is effected in contravention of the Government Circular, i.e. the guidelines dated 26th August 1995. The further challenge was made on the ground that the petitioners were not liable to be transferred as even if they are treated as surplus then the juniormost should have been sent. Both the contentions were not accepted by this Court which is clear from Annexure "C". This Court has held: