RAM ADHAR KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged a transfer order. Transfer is an exigency of service. Hence we cannot interfere in this matter.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Director of Education v. O. Karuppa Thewan, 1996 (1) UPLB EC 34 and has submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision the petitioner's transfer should be stayed because his children are studying in school and it is a mid session transfer.

(3.) In our opinion the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court does not lay down any principle of law that a transfer order is illegal because it is a mid session of the children's school education. It is well settled that every directive of the Supreme Court does not lay down a principle of law vide AIR 1975 SC 1087, AIR 2002 SC 3088, 1994 LIC 447, AIR 1990 SC 781, AIR 1983 SC 1246, 1996 (6) SCC 44, AIR 1985 SC 218, 1999 SCC (Crl) 1080, etc. A decision is an authority only for the principle of law it lays down.