MOHD. AYOUB Vs. STATE OF J&K;

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to Order No. 34-ADSJ of 2017 dated 8th September, 2017 passed by respondent No.3 to the extent petitioners have been transferred from the office of District Sericulture Officer, Sericulture Development Department, Rajouri to the office of District Sericulture Officer, Sericulture Development Department, Ramban and Jammu respectively.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they have been transferred by the impugned order despite the fact that they belong to the district cadre and they cannot be transferred outside the district. It is contended that they are presently posted as Senior Assistants in the office of District Sericulture Officer, Sericulture Development Department, Rajouri. They being Senior Assistants hold the District Cadre post as defined by the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 and as per Rule 4(2), all the posts carrying the pay scale equivalent or upto the post of Senior Assistant are the District Cadre Posts provided they are not included in the Divisional or State Cadre. The posts against which, the petitioners have been appointed as Senior Assistants are District Cadre Posts and they do not belong to the Divisional Cadre or State Cadre. It is contended that District Cadre employee can only be transferred within the district and the competent authority to issue such transfer order, is the Director, Sericulture Development Department, Jammu and Kashmir State. Both the petitioners hold the District Cadre posts and can only be transferred within the district that too by the competent authority, i.e., Director, Sericulture Development Department, J&K. It is contended that in the year 2016, respondent No.3 had issued transfer orders of Senior Assistants despite the fact that he was not competent to do so and when the matter came to the notice of the respondent No.2, respondent No.2 vide his communication dated 13th December, 2016 had cancelled the transfer orders issued by respondent no.3. It is contended that respondent No.3 has once again transferred the petitioners despite the fact that the petitioners belong to the district cadre and they cannot be transferred outside the district. Otherwise also respondent No.3 is not competent to order the transfer of the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order primarily on following grounds :-