MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner has challenged two orders dated 9th Novem ber, 1998 contained in Annexures 1 and 2 to this writ petition. By the impugned order contained in Annexure 1, the Upri Ganga Nahar Adhunikikaran Khand has been restructured as Gun Niyantran Khand, Basti and is being shifted 10 Basti. By the second order, the charge was directed to be handed over in accordance with the provisions made in the said order. Relying on these two orders, learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma contends that on account of such restructuring, the petitioner would be transferred. Such transfer will affect adversely on the petitioner since his wife is suffering from Kidney problem. There fore, according to him, these two orders should be quashed.

(2.) MR. I. S. Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand opposes the said contention on the ground that if for administrative reasons the project is trans ferred or reorganized or restructured, the same does not confer any right on an in dividual employee to challenge the same, even if such restructuring affects him and causes any hardship. Therefore, according to him, the writ petition is misconceived.

(3.) SO far as the order mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ petition is con cerned, there is nothing on record to com pare the facts of those writ petitions with that of the present petition. No material has been produced to show as to how the facts of those cases are similar to this case. Even if the question involved is raised, the same was a general order by which the entire question of shifting of the depart ment was to be reconsidered on the basis of the representation as directed in the said order by which the petitioner's case could not have been included because the petitioner has not challenged any in dividual order transferring him or posting him elsewhere.