0 (54M @ IN ‘i‘HE HIGH COURT OF JgDICATURE AT BIIASPUR‘ CHHATTISGARH i W.P. NO.$ft75 l 2004 Smt. Ilishwa Lakra, W/o. Mahendrar Gupta, aged ‘ about 45 years, R/o. of Tahsil 1 Pratappur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh VER PET'ITIONER The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Tribal Development Deptt‘,’ D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh The Chief Executive Officer, Zila ‘Panchayat Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh S. The Block Education Officer, Surguja, District Surguja, ; Chhattisgarh 1 RESPONDENT§ : ¢—. ¢a$ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE iv 6:: [f ?\ n\ CGNSTITION OF INDIA t i ik V g R HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPU Wn't Pemmn No. 3475 of 2004 Petiu'oner Vcrsus Respondents Smt. Ilishwa Lakra The State of Chhath‘sgarh 86 others Post for order on 6 ’H May, 2006. Sd/— Satish K.‘ Agnihou'i ‘ ‘ Judge i i}i HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Wn‘t Petition No. 3475 of 2004 Peh'tioner Smt. Ilishwa Lakla Versus Respondents The State of Chhattisgarli 8a others Shri Manaj Paranjpc, Advocate for the petitioner Smt AnJu AhuJa, Deputy Govt Advocate for the Respondents No 1 2 3 and 5 None for the Respondent No.4. ORDER ( mMay 2006) This otder of the Court was passed by Justice Satish- K. Agihotri. The petitioner by way of this petition is challenging the validity. of the transfer order dated 3 1.7.2004 (Anuexure P/9), whereby the peh'tioner was transferred along with several others fmm the post of Hostel Warden of Post Metnc Glrls Hostel Pratappur to the Mlddle School Kanchanpur Prem Nagar, SurguJa Learned counsel lappean‘ng for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer is bad in law and illegal on the ground, firstly, that the impugned order was passed in maladde exercise of powers, not due to the administrative exigency nor in the/public interest and secondly, that the petitioner was transferred earlier on 14.7.2004 and the second transfer order dated 31.7.2004 amounts to frequent ., K é v transfer. The pen'tioner‘has alleged malande on the ground that the petitioner was earlier suspended on certain allegations of misconduct and after enquiry the petitioner was exonerated from the alleged misconduct and tha suspansion was consequently xevoked on 12.5.2003. Accoxding to learnad counsel for the. peiitioncr the impugned nausfer curler was passed at the instance of those persons, who had made allegations of misconduct against the petitioner Earlier, which resulted into the exoneration from the alleged misconduct. It is not proved by any other document or any other conduct of the persons who were allegedly instrumental in getting the petitioner u‘ansferr'ed. Learned counsel has not disclosed even names of the persons, who have made complaints and the impugned transfer order was passed at their complaints. The allegation is as vague as it could be without being supported by any documents and as such, the same deserves to be rejected. One or two transfer order passed in a short period does not amount to frequent transfers so as to vitiate the ,1 transfer order. The transfer of the petitioner was made along with several othersdue to administrative exigency in public interest, as is clear &om the impugned transfer order. The respondents have clearly stated in their reply as under:- “It is again reiterated that the transfer order has been issued due to administrative exigeney and no political interference or any other consideranon involved in issuing the impugned order of transfer. As regards payment of salary for the period July 2003 to 8—1—2004, the petitioner was absent from duties and for this reason she was not paid her salary etc. In this regard it: is submitted that absent period of the petitioner shall be regularized as and when she applies for regularization of her absent perd and thereafter only necessary orders with regard to payment of salary to. the petin'oner may be passed.” The Supreme Court in the catena of decisions, mainly in the case of E. P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555 K. Narayanan & others Vs. State of Karnataka &. others A.I.R. 1994 S.C. §§_, B. Varadha Ra'o Vs.State of Karnataka &. others, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. / io 1955 Rajendra Roy Vs Umon oflnd1a, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1236, State of U P & another Vs Slya Ram 8r. another [2004) 7 S C C 405, Umon of India 8r. others Vs. Janaxdhan Debanath &. another, 12004] 4 S C C 245, Stafn of U.P. 8r. others Vs.Gobardhan Lal, 2004 A.I.R. SCW 20§2, has clearly settled the position of law that the transfer is a condition of service and necessaxy in the public interest’and ediciency in public administration; The decision of the employer should not be substituted’in the interest of the administrative exigency of the service, except in the case of malaflde exercise of powers or violation f any statutory Rules The impugned order 1n the present petition is alaiide exercme of powers nor 1n Violation of statutory prov1s1ons of law nor there was any complain about competence of the authority The impugned transfer order is passed in the administrative necessity. > In View of the above, I do not nnd any justihcation in interfering with the transfer order dated 31 7 2004 (Annexum Pf 9) With regard to the payment of arrears to the petitioner, the respondents have admitted in their reply that the absent period of the pen‘tioner between July, 2003 to-8.1.2004 would be regularized as passed neither in the m and when the petitioner applies for regularization for her absent period. Hence no order is necessary in this regard. 1n the result, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. M/y ‘ Sd/- ‘1 SatishK. Agnihom‘ 3/ / a Judge y‘ x . §~ ‘L ‘