j..^,^^ ^^^s^- ^ed..—-'""" ^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. S~<"'l3 /2009 '^ Petitioner Atmanand Singh aged about 41 years, S/o Vasudeo Singh, R/o Baikunthpur, Distt Koriya Versus Respondents ^l < 2. The State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary School Education Department D.K.S Bhawan Raipur The District Education Officer, Koriya WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^Ji 'r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSOARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.PJSt N0. 5019/2009 PETITIONER AtmanandSingh yersus RESPONDBNTS ; Stateof C.G-. & Another ~ WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH®CONSTITUTION OP INDIA Appearance: Shri Pai-ag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. SunifcaJain, P.L. for the State. ORALORDER (04.09.2009^ With the consent of leamed counsel fbr fche parties, the matter is heard, finally. Challenge in the present petition! is to the order dated 30.6.2009 passedbytherespondent No. 1| by which tne petitioner ,who is woridng as Assistant Teacher has been tra.nsferred rrom Govt. Primary School, Kot Block Baikunthpur, distt. Koriya at the option of District Education Officer Koriya. Subsequently vide order dated 18.8.2Q09 (Annexure P/4) the petitk>ner has b^^ri given posting at Govt. Primary School, Khagora, Block Khadgawan, distt. Koriya. Contention bf the counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer order is against the policy as issued by the government and further the petitioner being the office bearer^ could not have been transferrQd. It has been further contended that the wife of the petitioner is also a government teacher and is posted at Gpvemment School, Kanchanpur, districf Koriya and fherefore the petitioner could not have been transferred. His further contention is that one similarly placed office bearer was transferred and when he made representation the government has considered his representation and has subsequently cancelled his transfer order. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the maiter of Saryesh Humar Awdsthf Vs. U.P. Jal Mgam S&Others reported in 2004 SCC (L &S) S23. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the transfer is an inciderlt of service and the petitioner cannot claim :.M ^. the posting of his own choice, He further submits thaf initially in the transfer order it has |been mentioned that the petltioner has been transferred at the option of respondent No.2 and subsequently on the basis of administrative requirement the respondent No.2 has given a posting to the petitioner and therefore as oh date the petitioner cannot say that he has been fransferred without assigning tKe place of posting to him. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents as filed by the petitioner. When the court has pointedly asked the counsel for the petitioner as to since how long the petitioner has been working in the present place of posting^ he has no answer to this query. It appears fchat the petitioner must have completed more than three years in his present place of posting and therefore this relevant fact has not been mentioned in the application nor has been answered on behalf of the petitioner. So far as the grounds as taken by the petitioner is concerned, this court is of the view that none of the grounds 1s available to the petitioner. The posting of husband and wife together is merely an executive instruction and it further says that as far as possible the husband and wife may be kept in a particular place. The ground that the petitioner has been posted at the option of respondent No.2 without assigning any particular place is also not available to the petitiorier because subsequently his place of posting has also been given by the respondent No.2. So far as the ground of office bearer is concerned, there is no such law which protects any office bearer from being transferred if the State Government in a particular case has considered the case of some office bearers then all the office bearers cannot take advantage of the same. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the State Govemment for redressal of his grievances. The judgment as cited by the petitioner is of'no help to the petitioner because the facts of the said case are totally different from the present case. I find no merits in the case. Accordingly the petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge