:.l'ui. -f-; :-ii;ii'..!;'.,; :!.te I» AF/^ l..'->' * mCH GOVRT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (8) No. 4897 of2008 PETmONER : Cfaunamani Chandrakar Aged 42 years S/o Shri N.R.OiaadRdiat, W^king as Relrigerater Mechanicat O/o ChiefMedical & Healfh Ofifeer, Raipw, Disteiet ~ Raipw (CjG.)Wo T.B. Hospital Cxaaapas, Lai Bari Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS SESfOyPWSTS : l. State of CMattisgarii Through The Secpetary Department ofPubIie Heaffii and Fainily Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.8. Bhawan^Raipur. 2. The Dffectar, Health Serviws, Chh^tisg^H^ :B«Ei^.g^^^,,^' 3. Sut'esh Kumar i .Sharmai itefiigaatar Mechanie O/o Oiief MefHflal & HeaKli Qffieer,Raip«n-<C^) 4. LaxnMkantVenaa,RdBiBerafa}f cteufflc,^ O/o The Du'ector, Health Sfflviccs, CUhattisgaria, H.Q. Raitiur(C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER AKHGLE 236 OF THB eONS»I'UTgQNOF INDIA :SB:'E^>l®iiit;8aK^.^nii&iffi:3.'sa:^ Present:Shn R.K.Kesharwam, Advoeate fiwtte petitioiier. Sim Ardn Sao, Govenaieid Adv-ocate &rffic StatBA-espondeirts 1 & 2 (Passed on 05al day of Septemb^, 2008) •h 1. Leamed couasel appeamg toAe pe^tmer suhmt&tiiat fiie petitioiier, woridng as Refiigerator Mechanic in the ofiice af GhiefNedieal aad HeaMi Qfficer, Raipur, Kas been transfared to Ifae office ofCSaefMedical and Healfli OSSicer, Owg, on adm|ristraliw gnund. Lewned counsel challsng^ Ihe ianpumed transfer onler dated 7.7J1008?(Atinexure P/l) on the sole groutid that Ihe order is malafide asflieitqHi^ieA(»xleFhasbeen passedtoaccommodate respondentNQ. 4 asttie MEpfflndeutNo. 3 has been adjiisted in Raipur itselfand m respeet of respCTiderit No. 4, flie place of earlier posting has vwongly been shown as ofRce oftiie Chief Medical aad 2. 4. 6. -2- Heallfa OfiBcer, Durg when he was working in Ihe ofBee ofl&'ector, Healtfi Services, Raipur. . ; Malafide is well defmed ia fce matter efGirias Inveslment Privute Limited and ano^ier v. State ofKamataka cmdofters, as urider: "14. .....ThCTe can be two \roys by which a ease of mala fides can be made out; one that tte action which is impu^ied has been taken with Ihe speeific objeet of damaging tfae inta-est pf flie party aui, secondly, such action is aimed at helping sonae party which resutts in daaiage to the yaty aUeyng aiala fides....." In cases of transfw, strong malaficte is requir-ed to be proved. If one employee has not been traasferred and accommodAed in some plaee there is s<ane typographical mistake in respect of other employee, that eanaot be held as malafide exercise of powers. Ths respondent No. 4 has been transferred due to admimstrative exigency wherem no malafide has been proved. With regaid fo the otfier permissible g-ounds i.e. non-coniyetence of tke (rfficer concemed passing the mdear or inftaetion of ^atutoiy mles and regulations, no case hys beea made out. The allegatitm ofmalafide is not supported by any cogent reasons. Thus, fhe allegatiom are not proved. The court or tribunals, whidi are appellate authoritisa sboidd refi-ain fi-om considering tiie niceties of administrative needs and reyurameuts of tke situatioa coacemed. (SseStateofU.P.andothersv. GobarSsanLaf). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matta- ofMohd. MasoodAhmadv. State o/i/j'. anrfoffer^summedupthe scope ofinterferenee ia e3SM-eis& oftts disa-etienaryjurisdietionimder Artide 226 rfthe Constitution of ladia, as under: - ' (2008)78cc 53 2(2Q04)11SCC402 3 (2007) 8 SCC 150 ^•^,^'^.r- <£ 8. *"J. Tlie ^scope of ju^cial reviCTv of tramsfer under Artiele 226 of the ConstibAion of fiidia has been settled by the Supreaae Cowt in Raj'endra Roy v. Umen of India, NaUonal Hydroelectrio Pcjwer Corpn. Ltd. v. Sfwi Bfiagwcm, State Bank of Indiav. .( Anjdn SahyaL Eoilowinglfae a^esaid ptitKStpIgrlatd down by Ihe Supreme Court, flie AMahabad Hi^i Court iu Wfay Pal Singh v. SSte ofU.P. «nd0n1w Natii Tiwari v. Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Deptt. has held AatAe (Miaeiple oflaw laid down a flie aforesaid dscisions isdiat an order oftramfer is a part oflhe swnee eonditions ofaa empk^ee whicfa shouMaotbe mtarfa»dwith<M^iaarilybyacourt<€ law in exereise ofits discreti<»aryjuriaitcttoauader Artiele 226 ualess the court fiads flKrt dlherAe opder is mala fids or that the service rules prohifeit suA wca-e »)tcompetent to pass tfae wders." It is well-settled wiaciple oflaw Itett traasfer is an incidence of sfflmce and it is for the aiyloyer to deeide as to wfaere a particular ofiicer/enyloyee t>e posted, keeping in view public intwest as well as admimstrative sxigeaiy. SThis Court has limitedjunsdictiim to mteFfa»wiflitfaei!transfesM«ttea-and v:"yi'"! s! except in the eases of oroved malafide, non-competeiKe of aarthority passmgthe transfer wder and not being in e<af<amtty wtth (he iwles and re@ilattons.;;< • In view ofthe fwegomg, fhis petition is distaissed beiag devoid of meaat. :No<aAr:astocosts. • ., . • ^--'•.•••^•;'®:-'.:.. 1<.1 ; Consequently, I.A. No. 1, iun»licatK»fin- ad-mterim relieE, also stands disposedo£ . .;^. . .' ' ,•>• - —i.>^___s——d—»_.-, ;-:1.— ! : ^.Sd/-—. : i SatishK.Ti'^nihotri ; Judge _ Aimt