AMIT UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF JK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, as these emerge from the study of the file under consideration, are that the petitioner, an employee in the Revenue Department of the Jammu & Kashmir Government, was, vide Government Order No. 89-Rev (Gaz) of 2018 dated 6th of April, 2018, transferred from Beri Pattan to Nagrota, with a further direction that he shall lookafter the work of Tehsildar, Nagrota. Subsequent to his transfer, the petitioner joined at his new place of posting on 7th of April, 2018. He submitted his joining report to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, and assumed the charge of Tehsildar Nagrota, vide No. Teh-Nag/OQ/2018-19/24-30 dated 7 th of April, 2018. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 issued the order impugned bearing No. 92-Rev(Gaz) of 2018 dated 17th of April, 2018, whereby it has been directed that the petitioner shall await further orders of posting in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and the Respondent No. 3 shall continue to hold the charge Tehsildar, Nagrota.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner, here in this petition, is that the ViceChairman, Jammu Development Authority, addressed a communication to the Respondent No. 1, which spelt out the attestation of illegal mutations in Tehsil Nagrota during the last one and a half years, but, instead of taking any action on the said communication, the Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order, which is unwarranted, unjustified and unconstitutional in the eyes of law.

(3.) In his objections, filed in opposition to the petition of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3, has resisted and controverted the petition of the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that in pursuance of Government Order No:89- Rev(Gaz) of 2018 dated 6th April, 2018, he, working as I/C Tehsildar, Nagrota, came to be prematurely transferred as I/C Tehsildar, Thakrakote. It is stated that the transfer of the respondent was premature as he had rendered only one and a half years service as I/C Tehsildar, Nagrota and before that, he had already rendered more than 2 and a half years service in District Doda as I/C Tehsildar and, as such, he, instead of joining at Thakrakote, made a representation to the Government and the Government, having realized the fact that the respondent No.3 had been prematurely transferred in contravention of the transfer policy framed by it, passed the Government Order No:92-Rev(Gaz) of 2018 dated 17th April, 2018, whereby the respondent No.3 was asked to continue as I/C Tehsildar, Nagrota. The aforesaid order does not violate any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner, which is sine-qua-non for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is further stated that otherwise also, the respondent No.3, who, substantively holds the post of Naib Tehsildar, was promoted as I/C Tehsildar in the year 2014, subject to confirmation by the DPC/PSC and that the respondent is also senior to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 has proceeded to state that the petitioner has not been promoted as Tehsildar either on substantive basis or on incharge basis. He has no right to continue against the post of Tehsildar, Nagrota, as the perusal of the Government Order No:89-Rev(Gaz) of 2018 dated 6th April, 2018, brings it to the fruition that the petitioner was simply asked to look after the work of the post of Tehsildar Nagrota, which does not amount to promotion against the post of Tehsildar on incharge basis, stop-gap basis or ad hoc basis. It is also the case of the respondent No.3 that it is the prerogative of the Government to decide the posting of the Tehsildars, who have been promoted subject to confirmation by the DPC/PSC and, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is only a Naib Tehsildar and is, therefore, not entitled to hold the post of Tehsildar. It is further pleaded by the respondent No.3 that simply because the petitioner was asked to look after the work of the post of Tehsildar, Nagrota, does not mean that he has a right to continue as Tehsildar, Nagrota, but, as has already been stated hereinabove, the petitioner has not been promoted even on incharge basis as Tehsildar. In the end, the respondent No.3 has prayed that the petition of the petitioner, being highly misconceived, be dismissed.