MAHENDRA KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B.R.J. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Sanjay Kumar Prajapati, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Sri Mrig Raj Singh learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who all have assisted the Court in relation to the impugned transfer order dated 2nd April, 2013. This transfer order has been opposed reciting that it is on account of certain allegations made against the petitioner and complaints received that he is being transferred from Dharmapur to Muftiganj. Learned counsel submits that this recital is absolutely false inasmuch as neither the petitioner was made aware of any such complaint nor any such inquiry has been communicated so as to gather that there is a complaint against the petitioner while working as an Assistant Coordinator. Sri Pandey submits that this entire transfer order is based on the request of the respondent -Shashi Kant Yadav who moved an application before Dr. Paras Nath Yadav a Minister of the State Government of the Department of Minor Irrigation and Animal Husbandry.

(2.) IT is urged that the said Minister passed an order on 30.1.2013 which is endorsed on the application filed by Sri Shashi Kant Yadav copy whereof is Annexure -6 to the writ petition. The Minister has categorically directed the Basic Education Officer to carry out the transfer order as per the request of Shashi Kant Yadav. Sri Pandey submits that it is the request of Sri Shashi Kant Yadav which has been translated into the transfer order without there being any basis for the complaint as alleged.

(3.) SRI Mrig Raj Singh contends that there was a complaint against the petitioner and that he is in possession of the said complaint letter which has been made the basis of the transfer.