The J&K High Court on Tuesday ruled that posting and determination of a government employee or officer at the best suited place was the prerogative of the government.
The High Court dismissed apetition by Dr Firdous Ahmad Bhat seeking to continue as Block Medical OfficerKalaroos, as a bench of Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey held that the court cannotorder postings of a government employee.
Thebench pointed out that time and again it has been held even by the apex courtof the country that courts should refrain from directing executive authoritiesto transfer or post government officials at a particular place.
DrBhat had sought the court’s direction to allow him continue as officating BlockMedical Officer Kalaroos and direct the Treasury Officer Sogam to entertain andpass the bills which may be placed before him under his signatures as Drawingand Disbursing Officer.
Arguinghis case, Dr Bhat told the court that he was holding the charge under validorders of Director General Health Services Kashmir.
The state’s additionaladvocate general, Shah Aamir, however, contended that Bhat had no right tocontinue as MBO Kalaroos.
“Thepetitioner was holding the charge as a temporary arrangement,” Aamir told thecourt, adding that by approaching the HC the petitioner violated judicialprocess after the 1st Additional District Judge of Srinagar dismissed his pleaon March 8.
Earlier, the HC haddirected Dr Bhat to file a representation before the competent authority forredressal of his grievance.
Bhat approached the courtagain with the grievance that the competent authority was not deciding hisrepresentation and was denying him regular promotion as BMO and in the processhe was being prevented from performing his duties.
The court however held thatmerely because the petitioner has been asked to hold the additional charge ofBMO Kalaroos does not confer any right on him- legal, constitutional orfundamental- to seek directions posting him as BMO Kalaroos.
The court observed thatapproaching it again while Dr Bhat’s representation was pending before thecompetent authority was inappropriate.
“Theconduct of the petitioner is deprecable as even after being burdened with costsby the Additional District Judge, Srinagar, the petitioner has not stoppedhimself from approaching the Court leading to multiplicity of litigationwithout any fruits to be reaped by the petitioner.”
Thebench hearing the petitioner however said Dr Bhat has the option to pursue hisrepresentation pending before the respondents for seeking redressal of hisgrievance as directed by the court earlier.