61?” H Mm? W$§Q§§ 59 IN‘THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH (:PrmJI WritPetition No. /45@0i of 2006 PETITIoNER : - / Sagun Singh S/o Late Shri Madhaw Singh Thakur age aobut 4O years Off. Assn. Gr.Hl Electricity Board Disfr15ution Centre, Dewari, Tah Daundi Lohara W Dlstt Durg, Chhattlsg rh 11 Versus RESPONDENTS:- 1 The Member &T\&E> C S E B Ralpur J 2. The Secretary (y Ww& wupwwéé’Jié/W/ §\ C S E B Rarpur J/ 6g. 25/ EQWAa QeMWCCg'D 3. Executive Engmeer (Operation & Maintanace), Division, C-.S.E..B., Balod, Distt.: Chhattisgarh , 4.. Superintending Engineer; Durg Circle C.S.E.B., Durg, Chhattisgarh 1 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Distt.: Durg, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950 XI-HC-78 @§> WW,W,WH§I . o ‘ .‘...oo¢...‘."o‘.... 1112004 WWNW) WWW WW§WW WWW éawm 30-8-2005 Mr. Sanfosh Kumcr Chaim-Wadi, counse! for #he pafifioner. Miss Deepaii Pandey, Pane! Lawyer for #he Sfme/responden‘r No.5, on advance copy. Heard bo‘th #he counsel, an admission. By the insfam wri? befi‘rian under- Armles 226 an 227 of fhe ' Consfifu'rion of India, the pew-ion r, who is working as Assistant Grade-III in The Eiecfricify Board Disfribufio Cenire, Deori, has questioned his fransfer order- dared 24-6—2006 passed respondent No.2, whereby he has been ironsfer‘red from Deori to Divisio Office: Boiad. Transfer can be quesfione oniy on The ground if fhe fransfer is out r come of main fide or agains? fhe a'rumry ruies. I have perused fhe pefifio ; The befifioner has no? been abie ‘ro aiiege and es'i'abiish any of ‘l'he grounds. oreover, 1-he petitioner, as has been shied by iearned caunsel for fhe pefii'io er, is working of Deori since ids? me fhan eighf years. Therefore, rhe pefi‘l'i ner has already served for'sufficienf period a1- 1he present place and he h not been able io make ouf a case for interference of this Court under r‘ticle 226/227. of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the p itioner argued that the petitioner has been transferred even though he was orking since more than eight years at the present place whereas, some othe employees who were working for more than v ten years have not been transferr d. This cannot be made a g und for staying the transfer. It is the discretion of the competent auth ity to decide as to which employee is to be XI‘HC—78 Emma W £19? 45g ‘ .oo" .o.. \\ W .. f1 1E 200A WW<W> WW§F§$W WWW f p_~ hafium dismissed, in iimine. Na order as to cosfs. Consequen‘Hy, M.(W.)P.No. * disposed of. fransferr-ed and which employee men‘rioned earlier, fransfer éan oJ‘ mala fide acfion. Therefare, ‘rhe wrif pe‘ri'ria n is iiable in be dismissed and if is hereby is nof To be transferred. As has bean Ily be questioned when i1 is 1'he outcome of / / , Sd/— L.C. Bhadoo‘ Judge P.T.O. 3546/2006 and I.A.No.8243/2006 siand