Home       Top Rated       Submit Article     Advanced Search     FAQ       Contact Us       Lawyers in India       Law Forum     RSS Feeds     

Register your Copyright Online

We offer copyright registration right from your desktop click here for details.

Latest Articles | Articles 2014 | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05

Search On:Laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
We provide fast, cost effective and Hassle free solution.
Contact us at Ph no: 9650499965 (Divorce Law Firm Delhi)
File Caveat in Supreme Court
Contact Ph no: +9650499965

Main Categories
 Accident Law
 Animal Laws
 Aviation Law
 Bangladesh Law
 Banking and Finance laws
 Case Laws
 Civil Laws
 Company Law
 Constitutional Law
 Consumer laws
 Contracts laws
 Criminal law
 Drug laws
 Dubai laws
 Educational laws
 Employment / Labour laws
 Environmental Law
 family law
 Gay laws and Third Gender
 Human Rights laws
 Immigration laws
 Insurance / Accident Claim
 Intellectual Property
 International Law
 Juvenile Laws
 Law - lawyers & legal Profession
 Legal Aid and Lok Adalat
 Legal outsourcing
 Media laws
 Medico legal
 Pakistan laws
 Real estate laws
 Right To Information
 Tax Laws
 Torts Law
 Woman Issues
 Workplace Equality & Non-Discrimination
 Yet Another Category

More Options
 Most read articles
 Most rated articles

Subscribe now and receive free articles and updates instantly.


Published : July 18, 2013 | Author : Subhadra
Category : Case Laws | Total Views : 7587 | Rating :

Student of B.A, LLB(h), currently in my 4th year at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies affiliated to Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University !

Mrinal Kanti Ghosh V UOI

The petitioner appointed as a junior engineer on 13th august, 1998 @ WMS, Darjeeling. On 1st July 2001, he was transferred to IMS, Kolkata. On 30th June 2011, the petitioner was transferred to Ahmedabad. The petitioner preferred an application u/s 19 of the administrative tribunal act, 1985- penal transfer would be detrimental to academic needs of the son of the petitioner who is class VI, who is studying in a Bengali medium school. The interim order refused- no prayer made regarding postponement of the transfer on the ground of the child’s education. Original Application (679 of 2011) was withdrawn. The petitioner wanted a stay order on the transfer order only for 6 months i.e. end of the academic session of his child. He isn’t transferred till today. Representation made by the petitioner but rejected on administrative grounds.

Points Of Law:
# Whether the respondent can act in derogation to the statutory provision.

# Whether the respondent can deny a human consideration.

# Whether an order passed by a single man of the learned tribunal is sustainable in law.

# Whether the respondent act discriminatorily.

· The power of tribunal cannot be exercised by single member bench consistent of an administrative member only and as such the impugned order dated 16th august, 2011 passed by a single administrative member is without jurisdiction.

· The lis agitated by the petitioner in original application no. 778 of 2011 needs to be heard and adjudicated by a division bench of the tribunal consisting of a judicial member.

· The lis relates to interpretation of the transfer guidelines the application ought to have been heard by a division bench of the tribunal consisting of a judicial member.

· The learned tribunal erred in law in observing that the petitioner’s application was barred by the provision of order II, Rule 2(3) of CPC.

· The learned tribunals ought to have appreciated that subsequent to preference of the original application no. 679 of 2011, a fresh cause of action occasioned and on the rudiments of the same a fresh relief was claimed by the petitioner.

· The impugned order is based upon surmises and conjectures.

· The impugned order had been passed misinterpreting the provision order II, Rule 2(3) of CPC and erroneously applying the same to the facts of the instant lis.

· Transfer order was issued in the midst of the academic session of the petitioner’s child and that the implementation of the same would be detrimental to the academic needs of the child.

(a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent, their servants and agents to forbear from giving effect or further effect to the impugned order dated 16th august, 2011 passed by the administrative member of the learned tribunal.

(b) A writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent, their servants and agents from interfering with the services of the petitioner @ Kolkata office.

(c) A writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondent, their servants and agents to produce all records and proceedings so that conscionable justice may be administered by quashing the impugned order.

(d) Rule NISI in terms of prayers and to make the rules absolute.

(e) Ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondent, their servants and agents and further restraining from interfering with the services of the petitioner @ Kolkata office till the disposal of the instant writ application.

Arguments Against The Petitioner:
· Every government job is transferrable and thus employees in a governmental institution can’t challenge or ignore it at any ground.

· He was transferred to IMS Kolkata on 1st July 2001 and from there he got transferred to Ahmedabad on 30th June 2011, he has already spent 10 years at one place at a stretch, now he can’t complain for a transfer to a new place at any ground.

· The reason which he is giving that the transfer would be detrimental to his child’s academic is baseless and unreasonable. From the moment one joins any government job, he is well known about the fact that his/her job is transferrable and he/she has to deal with it no matter what.

· The impugned order passed by a single administrative member is within jurisdiction, thus the petitioner can’t file a petition declaring it as ultra vires.

· The impugned order is based upon surmises and conjectures.

Calcutta high court, on 14th June 2012: Hon’ble Justices Nishita Mhatre and Anindita Roy Saraswati)
Both, the Counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents did not appear in the matter and it stands dismissed for default of both parties.
S.19 Applications to tribunals (Administrative tribunal act, 1985)

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. Explanation-- For the purposes of this sub- section," order" means an order made--
(a) by the Government or a local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India on by any corporation 3[ or society] owned or controlled by the Government; or
(b) By an officer, committee or other body or agency of the Government or a local or other authority or corporation 3[or society] referred to in clause (a).
(2) Every application under sub- section (1) shall be in such form and be accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such fee (if any, not exceeding one hundred rupees) 4[in respect of the filing of such application and by such other fees for the service or execution of processes, as may be prescribed by the Central Government.]
(3) On receipt of an application under sub- section (1), the Tribunal shall, if satisfied after such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that the application is a fit case for adjudication or trial by it, admit such application; but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may summarily reject the application after recording its reasons.]
(4) Where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under sub- section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject- matter of such application pending immediately before such admission shall abate and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules.

Code of criminal procedure, 1908:

Order II (Frame of suit)

Rule 2: Suit to include the whole claim-

(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs, being oblivious of the fact that the reliefs claimed are distinct and different.

A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.

1 2 3 4 5
Rate this article!     Poor

Most viewed articles in Case Laws category
Indra Sawhney & Others Vs.Union of India
Scope of Part I of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
Bangalore Water Supply Case
ONGC v Saw Pipes
H.L.A Hart
Neha Bhasin v/s.Raj Anand Raj & Performer
Case Comment on Priyadarshini Matoo case
K.M.Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra
A.K Kraipak v. Union of India
Indian Medical Association V V.P. Shantha
Vodafone Case
A Misinterpretation & Un-Called Construction Of Section 114 Of Evidence Act: Live-In-Relationship
Post Decisional Hearing: Development through Judicial Pronouncement and case study of Canara Bank v. V.K.Awasthi, 2005 (6) SCC 231
Right to privacy under Article 21: A Case study
His Holiness Keshvananda Bharti vs State Of Kerala with reference to Agrarian Reforms in India
Workmen Of Dimakuchi Tea Estate V. The Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate
Most recent articles in Case Laws category
Mutual Consent Divorce -Made Easy
Lucknow development authority vs M.k. Gupta AIR 1994 SC 787
Kuldip Nayar V. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 3127
Leopold Cafe and Stores v/s Novex Communications Pvt Ltd
Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and Ors v. Commissioner of Police
Judgments on Bombay Rent Act
Basic Principles of Law of Injunctions in India
Mrinal Kanti Ghosh v UOI
Constitutional vires of laws relating to Organized Crime: State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah and Ors
A benchmark in history of the Indian Constitutional Law
Indra Sawhney & Others Vs.Union of India
Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court - Kailas & Ors. v/s State of Maharashtra and Taluka P.S
K.M.Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra
Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subash Chandra Agarwal
Afcons infrastructure and Ors. v. Cherian Verkay Construction and Ors

Article Comments

Posted by Meera on September 04, 2013
check this url for Judgments:

Posted by Sarfarajhammed Mulla on September 04, 2013
SOME IMPORTANT CASES in the Supreme Court /High
Court of india with regard to the educational rights of minorities.

1. T. M. A Pai Foundation Judgement.
2. Supreme Court Judgement in P. A Inamdar Vs State of Maharashtra.
3. Supreme Court Judgement in Brahma Samaj Education Society Vs state of
West bengal.
4. Supreme Court judgement in the Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs
T. Jose.
5. St. stephen's College Vs Univ. of Delhi.
6. Re kerala Education Bill (1957)
7. Ahmedabad St. Xaviera's College Society Vs State of Gujarat (1957)
8. Unni Krishnan, J. P & others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & others
9. The State of Bombay Vs RMD Chamar Bangwala, 1957.
10. Sudan Singh and others Vs New Delhi Muncipal Committee and others.
11. R. Chatralekha & ANR Vs State of Mysore and others (1964)
12. Minor P. Rajendran Vs State ofvMadras and others (1968)
13. Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Another Vs Union of India & others (1969).
14. DAV College, Bhatinda Vs State of Punjab and others (1971)
15. The State of Madras Vs Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan (1951).
16. The State of Bombay Vs Bombay Education Society and others (1955).
17. Rev. sidhajbhai Sabhai & Others Vs State of Bombay and Another
18. Rev. father W. Proost & Others vs state of Bihar and Others
19. State of Kerala etc. Vs very Rev. Mother Provincipal, etc., (1971).
20. Lilly Kurian Vs sister lewina & others (1979)
21. Christian Medical college hospital Employees' Union and Another Vs
Christian Medical College, Vellore Association and Others (1988)
22. Gandhi Faizeem College, Shajahanpur Vs University of Agra & another.
23. All saints High School. Hyderabad, etc Vs Govt. of Andra Pradesh and
Others etc.. (1980)
24. Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association Vs Union of India
and Others (1987)
25. Indira Sawhny Vs. union of India and states 91982)

we need top mentioned judgements soft copies.

Post Your Comments


Your comments

Note : Your email address is only visible to admin, other members / users cannot see it.

You can use following FXCodes

BOLD : [b]
Italic : [i]

[b] Legal Services India [/b] is a [i]nice website[/i].
[url= http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/ ]click here to visit.[/url]

Legal Services India is a nice website.
Click here to visit


Note : Currently, user comments are moderated and will be posted only after approval.

Please login or register a new free account.

Random Pick
With everyone seeming to be quite abreast of the famous saying An idle mind is a devils workshop, and so alluding to this phrase we can deduce that it is pivotal for every individual to keep himself engrossed and occupied with some work or the other, for if not

» Total Articles
» Total Authors
» Total Views
» Total categories

Law Forum

Legal Articles

Lawyers in India- Click on a link below for legal Services

lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Pondicherry
lawyers in Guwahati
lawyers in Nashik

lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in New Delhi
lawyers in Dimapur
lawyers in Agra
Noida lawyers
lawyers in Siliguri

For Mutual consent Divorce in Delhi

Ph no: 9650499965
For online Copyright Registration

Ph no: 9891244487
Law Articles

lawyers in Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Lucknow
lawyers in Jodhpur
Faridabad lawyers

lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Surat
Ghaziabad lawyers

lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Ludhiana
Gurgaon lawyers


India's Most Trusted Online law library
Legal Services India is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) 2000-2017
 ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3