ANOOP KUMAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R S Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed interalia for the following relief:- "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dtd. 30/10/2021 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure no.8) as well as order dtd. 25/11/2021 (Annexure no.9), passed by respondent no.4 and further directed to respondents to not transfer the petitioner from district Deoria to District Banda."

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner, who was posted as Junior Assistant at C.H.C. Mahen, District-Deoria, was transferred to C.M.O. Banda and on the same date by another order dtd. 15/7/2021, the petitioner was transferred from C.M.O., Mahen, Deoria to the office of C.M.O., Deoria. However, vide order dtd. 5/8/2021, the Chief Medical Officer, Deoria has required the petitioner to join as Senior Assistant at his office at District-Deoria, pursuant to which the petitioner has joined at the office of respondent no.4- Additioanl Chief Medical Officer, Transport Protocol, Deoria, District-Deoria on 10/8/2021. Subsequently, due to some confusion, two orders have been passed wherein the petitioner has shown absconding as one of the orders dtd. 15/7/2021 required the petitioner to join at Banda. He further submits that by impugned order dtd. 30/10/2021, the petitioner, who is working as Senior Assistant has been transferred from District- Deoria to Banda on the ground that he remained there nearly since 20 years, which is against the Government Policy. The petitioner vide order dtd. 25/11/2021 has been relieved from the office of respondent no.4, however, he could not join at the place of posting as he had met with an accident and is on medical leave. He further submits that transfer of the petitioner is in violation of the transfer policy of the State Government as the petitioner has been transferred second time within three months, therefore, the aforesaid impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law.