BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE Vs. SHRIRAM SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though many a ground has been raised for seeking review of theorder dated 05-05-2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 15970/10;however, learned counsel for the petitioner as confined to thesubmission that, inadvertently his presence is not marked in theorder dated 05-05- 2011 as also the fact of filing of return onbehalf of respondent No. 1.

(2.) It is observed that though the return in writ petition was filedon 05-04-2011, the office had not placed the same on record. In thereturn filed by respondent No. 1 a justification was tendered as toaction taken against the petitioner that, the transfer of thepetitioner was purely on administrative ground taking note of thefact that he was found involved in financial irregularities and wasfacing enquiry for the same. However, keeping in view the nature ofthe order which was passed on 05-05- 2011 on the anvil of the factthat transfer was stayed by an order dated 12-11-2010 and that therespondents were granted liberty to pass a fresh order in case ofadministrative exigency so warrants, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that the order dated 05- 05-2011 does notwarrant any reconsideration even when the stand taken in the returnis taken into consideration.

(3.) In respect of submission of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that his appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1 inWrit Petition No. 15970/10 be noted, it is observed that the saidinadvertent error which had crept in the order dated 05-05-2011 isrectified and the learned counsel is treated to have appeared forrespondent No. 1.