~',<^'"' -y LiL.,,,. INT^EHBGHCGMR^^FJUBO^URE^^^^ (^HI-i^TIS^RH) :.:::: :i:' :^i;;^.;^ :''.::.:-:^ WRrrPEHTION^Isi^^^^M^OF^OOS^^^^ PETITIONER: ; , .'.; . . • TES'RAM .SAI-IU>S/o~~Sfc(RI, B.R.rSftHU^AGEl.ABQU'R. •58;YRS..;:.'..':;';'^ /.'''S;S^^ ^. : . ; : R/o,:VILU\GE. & 1^^ .•'MADEL.E,'^' ---VIA^''" - MURUD,TWH.-KURUDw: •DISTRICT.—':DHAMT'A^ <C-G->:;::.::;- •'••^:::'..':i''^ ^QfSUS' • ! ' :: 1': ;: '! ;1:.:'';:';^ >..-^¥y" .^ .^SMy' •^%t^-^;; .-••''':c€s\<>^ .¥&Sfc^ ^^y^'" "^y^ ^ RESPQNDENTS t. ' THESTA'TEQFC.G., TMROUGH •- 4, WlE ^/ ::'£DUGCTIC)N ^ r -.' :\f~f: tr7 : '. :ly^:^:'l:''l-":r ^i^ —^ ©e-f^^lwe-HT':':1:-,:^^ B.IS.^.BHAVAN/.RAIPUR G^s^ ^> 2. • DISTRICT. • EE:)UEffTI@ .OFFieER, ,..,.• DHftMT%RI '(C.G:.)^\':.'1-.: :1-^ PETI^0N'.UNDBRiS ©l-iiiS6^.22^QRjNE^08 ttU'I® i.;i'OF:l:^DiAI:ffiBI®SMSiffiffiM^KQ:g[lE^EiK ^^ ;DE SlBi»IS KMffi® ERS:6;^^:'.%,:- ;:®@%mlf®ffWrPW ®N.:r'^...':'^ XI-HC-78 \3T?qT^l<<|<t<4,U>Ti1<{'f<[<S,Rc*l'(-iy<( hjf 'suc.fo'r *11*101^TT^ .(. 3ni?9Tq^ (ijjc|t^6|4) ^.200 3II^OTWR-li<b iMISn^^diHi* S'RtTSR^rfl'B 3Ilt?T i>i<<[o4li *ii*inY^"(sld'<Rf'WI'< ^gif^Tsii^sT ^8/10/2005 Shri 5.C. Vernia, learned ci Shri Akhil Agrawal, Panel L Heard. Ths petitioner, who is Headmaster in Primary Schoo transferred from [)argo^ioin to order dated 31/8/2005 has ck order'. The contentioh of leame< petitioner was posted at completion of one year he has a Parsuli on administrative groynd. The law in relation to inte] transfer is now well settled. matter of Kendrikya Vidyglai [unsel for the petitioner. L(iwyer for the State/respondents. presently working on the post of , bargahan, Shamtari tind has been Pri.mary School Parsuli, vide impugned jallenged the validity of the aforesaid counsel for the petitioner is that the Darbahan on 31/7/2004, and just after yun been transferred from Dargahan to 'ference by the Courts in the matter of The Apex Court' while dealing with the ^fl Seinsathan -Vs- Damodar Prasad Pandey. 2004 AIR SCW 55&3\ incidence of service js not to b^ is''*shown to be clearly ar-bitrary any prescribed norms of princi^ Ambani Kanta Ray -Vs- State^ observed that the transfer which is an interfered with by the Gourts unless it »rvitiated by /noAr-f/afeor infraction of \es govemmg the trarisfer. (please see ^ Orissa - 1995 (Suppl.) 4 SCC 169). ycq.«|«lrt«,nfl'«<|<», Rj'SI+iy^ — ^ P 's'Utl'-r nww'SRW '''——"••— —• ••—/• —• ••— 3n^?r (R^ (ijciijci.jj) ir^OTwR'ii* angn$?i*^icb W^ZQO srartR^ift?r3n^?T <prafc';4llT +tl*ie)T^T'f^^ ^P<^1'( ^?.aRtHaii^?i '2005-20,000 Unless the order of transfel violation of operative guidelin^ is vitiated by ma/d fide or \s made in s, the Court cannot interfere with it. {^See Union of India -Vs- S.L Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444). Who should be transferred and.ppsted wh^sre is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless th order of transfer is vitiated by rnala fide or is made in violation of op^rative any guidelines or ruies the Courts should not ordiharily interfer^ with it. In Union of India & others -Vs- J'anardan Oebanath & anotHer (2004) 4 SCC 245, it was observed as follows: "No Sovel^hment seryant or employee of a public under-taking hass one particular p\ a particular emp^ transferable po\ lflny legal right to be ppsted forever at any ace orplace of his choice since transfer of Iqyee appointed to fhe class or categofy of ?te from one phce to ano-ther is no+ only an incident, but a ^ondition of service, necessary too in public interest and ef^iciency in the public administration. Unless an ordei- of trdnsfer is shown to bs cn outcome of mala- fide exercise ^r stated +o be in violafion of statutory provisions prohifpiting any such tiwnsfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normi\lly cannot interfere with such orders as a ma+ter of rou\ine, as though they were the appetlate authtirities sub^tituting -their own decision for that of the employee/mana^ement, as againstsach order passed in 1he interest of a^m.inistratiye exigencies of the service concemed. Th^ position was hightighted by thls Court in l^latjonal Hydt^electric Pgwer Coivn. Ltd. -Vs- Shri Bheiwan f200fS 8 SCC 574. XI-HC-78 *ll*lwi^TTg» yoq»«i«jo.t|,ti>Tn|'<+<l<?,Rlril'Hy'( ^p SZX./ar' 3n^?Tqaq!(^c|^6i^) W^200 sn^STOTR-ii* wiTan^CTiRqra; ^l^f«<ni*1i*1rtV^Tf^!l^<Ri]^SI'( ^Mif^TanitT •Sf" /}f y/^' ue/^ In the facts and circums after'g.peripd.of one year coulc the same cannfit be said *o be ai counsel for the petitioner could is in vio'lation of any statutory the aforesaid order. The petition has not meri However, the petitioner concerned authority. C.C.as per rules. t'ances of this case, this second transfer not be treated as frequent transfer and outcomeof malafide. Since learned ^iot point out that the 'aforesaid transfer ^ules, I am not incljned to interfere with and the same is dismissed. free to file representation before the Sd/- ^ a!sinba Judge