https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161324 The Court dismissed the petition challenging the petitioner's transfer from Chief Secretary to Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission, and later to Officer on Special Duty. Although the Court found a violation of Rule 9(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 due to the lack of proper declaration of equivalence for the new posts, it did not grant relief as it did not infringe any fundamental rights. The Court held that the transfer was not discriminatory, arbitrary, or motivated by mala fides, emphasizing it was in the larger interests of administration. No violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution was found, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. en-us Fri, 23 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Aug 2014 12:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161324 The Court dismissed the petition challenging the petitioner's transfer from Chief Secretary to Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission, and later to Officer on Special Duty. Although the Court found a violation of Rule 9(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 due to the lack of proper declaration of equivalence for the new posts, it did not grant relief as it did not infringe any fundamental rights. The Court held that the transfer was not discriminatory, arbitrary, or motivated by mala fides, emphasizing it was in the larger interests of administration. No violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution was found, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 23 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161324