IN THE HIGH COURT OF M&DHYA PBADESH AT JAB&LPUR Brit Petition No~. / 1994 Petitioner Respondents Ganesh Kao Ransingh, son of R.V.Ransingh, dged about 47 years, working as Sub Engi- neer in Municipal Council Dhamtari,resident of Marathapara Bhamtari.' EM <s^. ' Kfd^w ^- Versus s 1. Director, Urban Adaainistra- tion.Madhya Pradesh,Bfoopal, 2. Jotnt.Director, Urban &dministration,Bhopal,M.P. PET-ITIOH OHDER ARTIGLES 226/227 OF THE C01SSTI- TBTION OF INDIA. , K XI-HC-22 sn^T?iT R-fi+sn^r Sht|i<t) (ifScT SlWti ~3S[ -^WWii, ®Tfl^'16,fsldiyy 3TT^^T'.Ta^ *<1*1CTI S»>*11'»> i^?....?T^V^ 200 f^s 3n^?T?T?fRKflf^T 14-09-2006 Shri B.D. Guru, learned Shri Arun Sao, learned Go Heard finally with the Order dictated as follows : coibnsel for the petitioner. •»(t.Advocate for the State. cons^nt ofthe Darties. ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who was Council, Dhamtari. District RaipLir transfer order dated 26-7-1994 transferred from Municipal Councfl Council, Arang, District Raipur. Working as a Sub Engineer in Municipal ', has challenged the validitv of his (Annexure - A), wherebv he was I, Dhamtari, District Raipur to Muntcipal (2) The allegations are that| Municipal Council, Dhamtari, whi|> the said establishment in the ye^r state that the Municipal Council, whereas the Municipal Council, /li|rang alleaed that ordinarilv an empl<l>vee transferred to a lower grade Murticipal made allegations, vide para 5.3 difficuities against the said orde tii^Fti'll-i tiitKiTfffs^t' ^;3rfWT3n^T the petitioner was an employee of was appointed as a Sub Engineer in 1980. Para 5.2 of the petttion would Phamtari was a Class (AA) Municipality was a Ciass (C) Municipality. It is of AA Class Munjcipalitv is not Council. The petitioner has also of the petition^ regarding his personal of transfer. The around taken bv the '^ XI-HC-22 sn^rqiT R-ficbsn^r sti*i gfg(T *<it<cfTai<ii<:h 3^ '<<wi<nti, yrfl+i'ie, fS|i'tiy^< _..aS?.^.'i^.. ^ 200 R'b^ STI^TS^HTWHf^T z petitioner is that an employee b(trne the permanent employee of that another Municipality without haviihg his service career as he would lo4se his seniority. for the petitioner submits that this in the High Court of Madhva Pradesh, (3) Learned counsel appearitig petition was filed inthe vear 199t) Jabalpur, and the impugned ord^r of transfer, so far as it relates to the tt thdt if the Detitioner has not been relieved petitioner, was staved saving th^t from Municipal Council, Dhamtaili Dhamtari, the operation of the in|it petitioner alone is concerned, However, learned counsel for the| to whether the petitioner could the High Court of Madhva Pradesh referrina to the various decisions has observed vide oara 4 as follows: (t)|^f(n4l*1 HTR^ff ^' te^ <r3|-K,t< ^3ff^iT3n^r in the local cadre of Municipality is IMunicipality and as such his transfer to his consent may cause a prejudice to 8 and no one in his place has joined at irfipuaned transfer order, in so far as the shall remain staved until further orders. petitioner is not in a position to state as 'ail the benefrt of stav order aranted by or not. Be that as it mav. a1/ail (4) The law in relation to consideration settled. The Apex Court while delaling Sanahatan vs. Damoctar Pras^d Pandev (2004 AIR SCW Pa.5563j Ideration of orders of transfer is now well with the matter of Kenffriva Vidya y^ XI-HC-22 3:^;2(FTT?PT, «'-rflt1'l6,('icliy^i 3TT^?T \^> HIMMI SbtTT* MS|cb ^c\'^\\°\^ ^ 200 f^s sn^rw R-fi+sn^r Shxicbgf^T •?. 3n^r?^iTO:^f?tT ^- "Transfer whicjh not to be interfered shown tc be cleariy or intraction of any nnvarninn +ho +rar»c-l yw w, t iii «g srare ot onssa, 7ys|i> the order of transfelr »»»n/JAin i.rl/ilA+Inw ntl iliciuc iii viuiciuuji vi cannot intertere withl Abbas. A!R 1SQ3 transrerred and pos administrative autho )ted where is a maser ror tne Mty to decide. Unless the order of transfer ss vitiat^ vioiation of operati\fe rt/M!rt<= chAtitrl nAt anv auidellnes or rules tne orfciip.srHv ip.torfsrs with it. !n Unjon ot inaia & Omers (2004) 4 SCC 245 it fr^.w* ^M^iil •^!?*/*<4 iiviii vi j^ pifiiw^f Incident, but necessary tod A<P!ni*if*Att In diiLriiisii^y ii i uniess an orde|r an outeome <|>f stated to be prOviSions proi^ the Courts o( csnnot intsrfsde matter ot routin appellate auth<l dedsion for management, nocc.dri |n fhal f " +i^f<-t41-f >ii^^TtfWt<Ri<.t;i< ^srf^Trsn^r is an incidence of service is with bv the Courts unless it is arbitrary o," vteitsd by mala fide prescribea norms of pnnciples ar /^dd &ry*hani t^snfa f?sa\/ \/« ^^o^^v ti»i*»Nt»t*t»nttt^« * iw^ •*/. (Suppi) 4 SCC 169). Uniess is vitiated bv mala fide or is wpdciiiv^ yUiUoii ico, ulc v^uui i, it. (See Union of tndia vs. S.L <;?- -7/f/fA lAftn chftiilrl ha d by ms!a fide or is made in ^s. Janardan Debanaih & anr. \Mas observed as follows : "No governmer)t servant or employee of a .ill^llil* IIK/JAI puDiic unasiia^ be posted plac^ or p'scs of a particular class or catedory ^ing has sny !s3CT' ny^ ^0 tor^ver at any one particuiar bf his cholcs sirscs transfor ^mployee appointed to the of transferable posts to anothsr is ,"ot or.iy an a condition ot service, in public interest and h$ pubiic administration. ot transter is snown to be mala flde exercise or in violation of statutory iblting any such transfsr, the l nbunais normallv "."th such ordsrs as a |e, as thougn tney were tne iritiessubstituting their own |that of the s.~ip!oysr/ as against sucn orders intor(ac+ nf flrlmintd'ra'f'iva exigencies of t(ie servlce concerned. XI-HC-22 ssT^iraTCW, yrfl^'is, (a)diyy,< 3ll^JtM5|cb bS? ^^-l HWWI ShHKft ^ •ff^ 200 f^s 31T^T^T f^iwsn^r sblittiHf?cT a.n^rs^iTWHfN -M wifwft^ wrof ir'tec^-rfSrRTC ^;3lf^lT3TI^T position was Kiahliahted bv this Court in N3h:G,iai HydrSfelsciric Poww Coipn. Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagvifan, (2001) 8 SCC 574:- (5) In the absence of pleadingls of arbitrariness, mala fide or violation rules, as in the present case, 1 am not Iter of transfer of the petitioner on the of anyoperative guidelinesor the| inclined to interfere with the ord above Drinciples. The petition ha^ Gowri no merits and the same is dismissed. SdA SuniIKumarSmha T 'Judge (ift^y^) i-