Early Times Report
Srinagar, Apr 5: A high court division bench of Justice B L Bhat and Justice B S Walia today dismissed employees' leader Qayoom Wani's appeal against the March 4, 2016 single bench verdict, upholding his transfer to a Tangmarg school by education department.
"Having minutely gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the single bench has dealt with the matter in accordance with law settled by Supreme Court, particularly the one governing transfers. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the reasoning recorded by the single court. Consequently, no ground is made out to warrant interference with the impugned judgment on any count whatsoever," said the bench.
"The government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of its employees. However, this power has to be exercised honestly and reasonably and not on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien or oblique motive. The order in the instant case has not been issued for any extraneous consideration or oblique motive," the court said, ruling that Wani had been transferred and posted where, by dint of his appointment, he ought to be.
The bench also rejected Wani's plea that the authorities didn't have powers to repatriate him from SSA and post him as incharge Headmaster at Ogmuna, Baramulla, as he had gone on month's medical leave from January 16 and was on leave on February 2 when the impugned order was passed by the government.
On March 4, the single bench had stated that being an employee, the union leader was not entitled to seek a posting of his choice, obliterate hedges of discipline and abandon official duties.
Wani had challenged the February 2 order, claiming it had been issued out of vendetta against him by the director school education, Kashmir, whom he had arrayed in the petition.
The court had said that transfers of teachers, masters and incharge headmasters was routine and Wani had not been singled out. "It otherwise sounds strange and illogical that a master is designated as Incharge Headmaster but does not actually hold such a charge. The relevant Recruitment Rules do not envisage any such designation. Such a designation is a misnomer," the court had added. |
