Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/324/2012 of PRADEEP KUMAR BISHNOI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR. on 31 December 2012
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 324 of 2012 (S/B) P radeep Kumar Bishnoi …..Petitioner. Versus State o f Uttarakhand and another. .…..Respondents Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand /
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 324 of 2012 (S/B)
Pradeep Kumar Bishnoi
…..Petitioner.
Versus
State o[f Uttarakhand and another. ] .…..Respondents Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents.
Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J.Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)
An important work at Beerokhal was the public interest behind the transfer of the petitioner within two years from his last posting. At Beerokhal, Sri Nathu Singh was already working in the same post. Despite he having not served at Beerokhal for a period in excess of five years, Sri Nathu Singh was transferred creating a vacancy in order to transfer the petitioner to Beerokhal.
2. Under the transfer policy, a person can be retained at a place for a period upto five years, so the public interest, as highlighted, is of no substance. The transfer order, which has been passed in public interest within a period of two years from the last posting of the petitioner, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed to that extent.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
31.12.2012 31.12.2012
Rathour