A legal issue!
My wife Nutan had challenged transfers of police officers through a PIL. She had said in the Petition that after the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in Writ Petition No 310 of 1996 (Sri Prakash Singh vs Union of India), the UP Government passed two Government Orders (GOs) dated 26 December 2010 as regards posting of Station Officers in police stations and that of Circle Officers, ASP, SP, DIG and IG in the field postings. These GO fixed the minimum duration of these posting as 2 years. When an officer is removed before this period, the reason of transfer shall be clearly specified in writing. Presently these procedures are not being followed and transfers are being done without assigning any specific reasons. Hence, she had prayed for review of all transfers and ensuring compliance of these GOs.
The PIL was dismissed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench. I present the relevant portions order of the Hon'ble Court----
"That this matter relates to the transfer policy of police officers of different ranks including the senior police officers.
Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ashok Pandey reiterated the pleadings of writ petition in the oral submission but transfer being an exigency and condition of service cannot be interferred in a public interest litigation. Besides, petitioner's husband is an I.P.S. Officer of U.P. Cadre, therefore, even though she claims to be not interested in the cause directly or indirectly, yet in the public perception, her stand may not be accepted. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Seema Dhamdhere Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in (2008) 2 SCC 290; (ii) Gurpal Singh Vs State of Punjab (2005) 5 SCC 136 and (iii) Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) J SCC 273 has held that the court should be careful and circumspect and should reject at the outset petitions involving service matters which in the guise of P.I.L are to waste the precious time of the court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed."
Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ashok Pandey reiterated the pleadings of writ petition in the oral submission but transfer being an exigency and condition of service cannot be interferred in a public interest litigation. Besides, petitioner's husband is an I.P.S. Officer of U.P. Cadre, therefore, even though she claims to be not interested in the cause directly or indirectly, yet in the public perception, her stand may not be accepted. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Seema Dhamdhere Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in (2008) 2 SCC 290; (ii) Gurpal Singh Vs State of Punjab (2005) 5 SCC 136 and (iii) Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) J SCC 273 has held that the court should be careful and circumspect and should reject at the outset petitions involving service matters which in the guise of P.I.L are to waste the precious time of the court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed."
I present the matter and the accompanied judicial order because it does seem to have wider ramifications. At the same time, I would invite comments from some of you as regards this matter, particularly in light of the question that if apparently some legal right is being infringed or something allegedly improper is being done, should there be a legal remedy for that or not? If yes, what should be the legal remedy in this particular case?
Amitabh Thakur
Lucknow
# 94155-34526
Lucknow
# 94155-34526
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment