RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Somesh Khare in support of this appeal and Sri Sandilyal, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel who appears for the State. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.2.2009 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of his transfer from one Tehsil to other Tehsil has been dismissed. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was working on the post of Revenue Inspector pursuant to the earlier order, of course in the officiating capacity, but when an order of reversion was passed, appellant came to this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. 32743 of 2003 in which on 4.8.2003 this Court granted an interim stay to the order of reversion of District Magistrate passed on 29.1.2003 until regularly appointed Revenue Inspector joins the post. Argument is that as the interim stay granted by this Court which is still in operation, the appellant is entitled to continue on the post of Revenue Inspector but in view of the present order of transfer, the appellant has been directed to work as 'Lakhpal' which amounts to violation of the orders of this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that at the transferee place also the post of Revenue Inspector is available and therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to work as 'Lekhpal'. However, there is no dispute to the fact that availability of the post of Revenue Inspector at the transferee place could not be stated/placed before the writ Court which challenges the order of transfer and thus, this is not the matter of consideration of the writ court and thus, that may not be considered by the appeal Bench. So far the order of transfer is concerned power of learned District Magistrate to transfer the appellant from one place to other there may not be any question. Accordingly, so far order of transfer which was challenged in the writ petition, in which this Court declined to intervene, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error and thus, no ground to intervene at this stage. Counsel for the appellant submits that if a liberty is given to the appellant to make a representation before the learned District Magistrate stating the fact that at the transferee place also the post of Revenue Inspector is available and in view of the orders of this Court dated 4.8.2003 which is still in operation, he may amend his order and that may be directed to be considered within a reasonable time then the appellant may get the justice. It is further submitted that this Court may also observe that the writ petition No. 32743 of 2003 be decided with expedition. So for the aforesaid two claims are concerned, in respect to first claim suffice to say that it is always open to the appellant to lay his claim before his concerned competent authority who, if is in position to pass appropriate order, is to pass orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is always open for the appellant to move appropriate representation before the learned Collector/District Magistrate for the redressal of the grievances, who may pass appropriate orders on merit in accordance with law and so far second claim of the appellant for getting the writ petition decided, it goes without saying, it is always the choice of the petitioner to move appropriate application before the appropriate Court. With the aforesaid observation, in relation to two liberties, so for the impugned order challenged in this appeal, this Court declines to intervene. Appeal dismissed.