D K SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions challenge the order of transfer, transferring the petitioners from their respective posts, from one Development Authority to another and since the issues involved in these 6 writ petitions are almost common with a slight distinction in 2 of them as would be explained hereinafter, these writ petitions are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) I have heard Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma and Sri Neeraj Tiwari for the petitioners in 5 writ petitions and Sri Vikas Budhwar for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 45320 of 2005 and Sri Sudhir Agrawal, learned Addl. Advocate General on behalf of the State and Sri A.K. Mishra and Sri H.R. Misra respective counsel for the Development Authorities.

(3.) THAT other 2 writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 45334 of 2005 and 45336 of 2005 have been filed by Sri R.P. Singh and Sri Hargovind Swarnker, who are Assistant Engineers challenging the order dated 6.6.2005 whereby Sri R.P. Singh has been transferred from Ghaziabad to Gorakhpur and Sri Hargovind Swarnker has been transferred from Allahabad to Kanpur in public interest. These two are Assistant Engineers and the order of transfer impugned by them does not refer to the decision of the Lucknow Bench as in the case of the other 4 writ petitions. This is the only distinction on facts between the case of the 4 petitioners at serial No. 1 to 4 and the petitioners in these 2 writ petitions. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that this entire transfer chain is on account of the order passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court: and is not a transfer on account of any administrative exigency.