^f0\r IN TME miGS COURT OF JUBj(.aTURE: AT B IL*S»'OR( CtBi6'FT.Ei:G&RHl WRIT PETmON N© OF 2003 PETITIONBR V E R S V S Saiik Ram I.ahre, son ef Muli Ran I<ahre,aged aboat 38 years. a'orking as Assietant Teadher at Baiak Ashram.Orehha.Mata Rukmani Sewa SanstIaan.Dimrapal, Oistriet-Bastar,(C.G.) vWiSS 's^ ^^ ssQf'ovioews ,.^^>^^- «.«6^° ...-^"" / 1. State ®fOabattisgarh. through Secaretary, Department of Tribal ^felfare, B.K.s.Bullding.Mantralay.Raipur. ,G.) 3„ enmnissioner, Tribal W«elfare Bepartmeiat, oagdalpuc.. 4. Seeeratry, Mat& Ruianani. S-ewa SansfetaBn. Bimrapal.olstrlct Bastar,(C.Q.) 5 o Sugeriiateadent , Balak Ashrani.Orcbha, Bistriet-eas tar. (C. G.) ^•' WRTT PETITION 0NEER &RTJCUES; 226/22^ OF THB- COffiTITUTION OF INCIfe. •fe.. T XI-HC-22 an^r^i h-u* sn^v sh^i^ •<-if?a ^sr ^tiiiiM;!, tS'dltiilii, faini^y 3TT^T 'WSR :w.'P.:.Ro_3^c>2A-OVS "'H'I. 200 W*WII SbNI<S fq^ST' sn^i'^iiwsfltt 19-7-2004 Shri Vinay Pandey, Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Panel La'l Shri Prafulla Bharat, Advocal Heard. The petitioner has preferred| the Constitution oflndia against th| respondent No. 4 whereby he has] Orchha to Kanya Ashram, Orchha. Counsel for the petitioner this has been done so as to accormnol Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has been transf4 village and in between these two sc} relied on a decision ofthe Hon'ble and others -v- Gobardhan Lal reooitted ortier that an order oftransfer should notl aforesaidjudgmeirt, it has been held |is "9. A challenge to an eschewed and should not t|e Tribunals asthough they a4< ordera, wliich could assess needs and requiremeirts of the reason that Courts or decisions in the matter o: ^iT'q^<fll 'HTR^ff ^ t^?)T iPaTt-eR ^aipgiTsn^T Advocatej for the petitioner. twer for the respondents 1 to 3. \e for respondents no. 4 and 5. this petition under Article 226/227 of order dated 18-9-2003 passed by the |been transferred from Balak Ashram, sulbmits that the transfer is mala fide and ijdate one Smt. Kavita Nag. Ro. 4 and 5 on the other hand submitted f4rred t6 a different school in the same lools, onlv there is a boundarv wall. He |Apex Court in the case ofStateofU.P. in 2004 AIR SCW 2082 to contend be normally interfered. In para 9 ofthe under:- oftransfer should nomially be countenaiiced by the Cowts or Appellate Authorities over such Itfie niceties of the admiiiistrative situation concemed. This is for Trlbunals cannot substitute their own transfer for that of eompetent [Tft^ ^Pa^l the »»1 XI-HC-22 -s^ 'SIM\V\^. d-dlti'lia, fawiy^ 3Tli!?T T^SR _^^ _ ur'p-^o.360yc20Q3 *ii*ini a»tii* "WI, 200 Ri'biisr' sn^r^ii h-H'h Sf^V ^THI^ ^l^ o, JN IISft .%3 SfI^I'?^ITW ^lfet ev^n and authorities ofthe State and made must be such as to inspi^ based on concrete materials the mere making of it or i eonjectures or surmises and e: reasons, no iuterferenee coutd ( oftransfer." Having considered the facts 4 material on record andiurther that Srdt. as party nor there is any material tos] smt. Kavita Nag, and that the petition^r the same village and further since tra^ opinion of this Court, no case for ir4a made out in exercise of extraordmajy 226/227 ofthe Constitutionoflndia. The petition fails and is dismiss^d +1^41'1 TTP:R?f ^ 'fe1^ •l^l't-^R "^ sif^n 3nS'?i allegations of mala fides when •e confidence in the Court or are ought not to be entertamed on MI consideration bome out of ^cept for strong and convincing ^rdinarily be made wifh an order ind circumstances of the case and Irdt. Kavita Nag neither has been made )iow mala fide vis-a-vis Bti&S8s»&A^(<' has been transterred to a school of (sfer is an exigency of serviee, in the in^erference in the impugned order is jurisdiction vested under Article ['T^^P^^