S P JINDAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has been transferred from Meerut to Ghaziabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Director of School Education, Madras and others v. O. Karuppa THEvan and Anr., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666, and has urged that in view of this decision, the petitioner could not be transferred in the mid-term of his children studying in school. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court does not lay down any principle of law that a Government employee, whose children are studying in school, cannot be transferred during the mid-term of his children studying in school. THE aforesaid decision is mere a direction of the Supreme Court without laying any principle of law. Such direction without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent. A writ lies where there is any error of law apparent on the face of the record and not merely because there is some hardship to the petitioner. Most of the Government employees have children and if it is held that they cannot be transferred in mid-term of their children studying in school, there could hardly be any transfer. THE aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court does not lay down any principle of law. Transfer is an exigency of service. Hence, we cannot Interfere with the impugned transfer order dated 31.10.2001. However, the petitioner may make a representation to the higher authority who will decide the same preferably within a month thereafter in accordance with law. THE petition is disposed of.