Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Others on 29 January, 2025
Sanjeev Kumar versus State of H.P. & others
CWP No. 1822 of 2025
29.01.2025 Present: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate
General, for the respondents-State.
Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned
Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of
notice on behalf of the respondents-State. He prays for and
is granted two weeks’ time to file reply/instructions.
CMP No. 1956 of 2025
Notice in the aforesaid terms.
It has been submitted that the petitioner has
been attached to Forensics Headquarters (FHQ), Junga and
his Headquarters had been fixed at Department of Forensic
Sciences (DFS), H.P. by respondent No.2, who is not the
appointing authority of the petitioner and is not competent
to effect his temporary attachment. However, during the
course of hearing, no provision of law/instruction has been
shown to this Court to demonstrate that only appointing
authority is competent to transfer an official/officer.
Therefore, this plea cannot be accepted prima facie at this
stage.
It has further been stated that attachment has
been made contrary to the transfer policy as well as the
order issued by the State Government imposing ban on
general transfers in the mid academic session. It has been
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SK Nausad
Rahaman vs Union Of India (2022) 12 SCC 1 that transfer is
an incident of service and Court cannot entertain the same
unless the mala fide is made out. In the present case no such
mala fide has been shown, therefore, this plea will not help
the petitioner.
It was also submitted that the work load at
Forensics Science Laboratory, Shimla and Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, Mandi is similar. This Court is
not competent to go into the factual question regarding the
necessity of attachment while exercising the power of
judicial review because the power of judicial review is not
an appellate jurisdiction vested in a Court. (please see Tata
Cellular versus Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651). Hence, no
case for grant of interim relief is made out at this stage.
Reply as prayed, be filed within two weeks’ and
rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within one week
thereafter.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Vacation Judge
January 29th 2025
(Chander)
[ad_1]
Source link