i;i i!ii,-:.i[Eir7iiii»!'-»-'<»'ft.••••——-'-•>-;»' cc/^' !\ .... l - €>f,"fh - \ Sinsle •i8"£ilh"N -L..',!iitiJ^e~ "" ( 'C^- • IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONiiO. 4_?8^_QF 2004, PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS2-1^Is /<J^-' ..-f/ ^^0-^< ^y^ ..••'_.-<\,--" ..•"" ...-••c^ ..-••".^" ^y^t? ^ <?^^ <°' <^x -w -liff1'' : Smt. Chameli Swarnkar, wife of ^ Shri D.R. Swarnkar, aged about 52 years, P.0. Gadariyapara, Dondi, District: Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Tribal & Welfare Department, Raipur. The Collector, Tribal Welfare Department, Durg, Distt: Durg (CG). Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, OfficeofCollector,Durg, Distt : Durg (CG). Block Education Officer, Dondi, Distt : Durg ( CG). ^ -5, 4. 5- ;e@BS!N?i """^•^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. <. ', XI-HC—78 ^iqiils^ra- sn^?ig?i'N; ^^ ^rraRTq, "E^ftwr®,l^ray i/v, P, A^o; 4-^7^°^- ^!!Waf?tf3il^I aOTfeN w«Taf4'TSCT!"(fW5R ^affiTqgn^f 15.02.2005 ,..,"«''' \^:wy!'sssssy Shri Vinod Deshmukh, coujisel for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Pane, to 4 on advance copy. Heard on admission. The petitioner has filed tfae Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1 writ petition, challenging the validity of her transfer order dated 31.7.2004 (Annexure-P/1) by which she has been transferred from Adivasi Kanya 4shram, Dondi, District Durg fo Adivasi Kaaya Ashram, Aammadola, Distr|ct Durg on the administrative exigency. Leamed counsel for the lietitioner submits that the petitioner is posted at Dondi since 1997. He fa^ther submits that the petitioner is a Lady and she has been traasferred to a rface, which is a Jungle area and it would be dfflicult for her to reside th4"e and serve at that place. It is also submitted that the transfer ofpetitloner is a mid-session transfer by which, in fact institution shall be affect^d where the petitioner is working. He farther submits that on all the^e grounds, the petitioner has filed a representation on 11.8.2004 (Am|iexure-P/3) but the aufhorities are not deciding the same. The limitations in relation td iriterference in the matter oftransfer are now well settled. The order of trjansfer can be challenged either on the grounds ofmalafide or on the groitod ofviolation ofany law or mle or the policy. Transfer is an exigency cf service. The persons working on the :^?_ Ssii^ rsr ^pfRTq, •^ftwrrs, -f^nwp: b,;^.M6- 4-5'S'7/^ ^?^?^[T^TF% •tW •mi?;anw .r- ^M^WfWSS3 8g3!" — ^-- transferable post cannot challenge] '^HI'^P?^ ^R^'H' fhe order of transfer in general manner unless certam malafides or violati<jn oflaw or mle is shown. The petitioner has not pleaded any such malafid^ nor the counsel for the petitioner could point out violation of any law, ru|e or policy. The transfer has been made on admmistrative exigency as isl clear from fhe order dated 31.7.2004 (Annexure-P/1). In fhe matter of Mahipal\ Prasad Sahu Vs. Chhattssgarh State Electricity Bomd reported in 20^1 (2) C.G.L.J., ps- 116, this Court held that fhe transfer orders are norma|ly passed in exigency of public service. Unless it is shown that the order isjmalafide or in contravention ofstatutory mles, the Court would not be inclined to interfere with the order. In the matter cSState ofU.P. and other^ Vs. Siva Ram and another renorted m AIR SCW, ps. 4548 th^ Hon'ble Apex Court held that no Govemment servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any o^ie particular place or place ofhis choice smce transfer ofa particular emplojyee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts fi-om one placejto other is not only an incidertt, but a condition of service. Considering the facts and cjrcumstances ofthe case and after goin^ through the decisions referred to|above and particularly the time since which the petitioner is posted at pondi i.e. since 1997, this Court is not inclmed to interfere with the order ^ftransfer ofthe petitioner. ^ »?'''''T1'!ai'!1^-<iak"-fe-!im".ari»t-a——»-—!—*" 4-- .•S????%FTC;iW -.2il ST^T ^^ss 'pi"fl>l -,.^ '3~^ ^ra^pT, E^ftwE®,•ferray .^..^^..^.^.^^c./^s^ T^T CT?Fpyt) ^^tirer'aftgsn^? -3 WifeFfr?'WRif'?'fs'et ^.stranan^T At this stage, leamed coun^el for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has akeady filed a repre^etrtation before the concemed authority and the authority may be directed tcj decide the representation in accordance with law. The prayer seems to be reascjnable. Ifthe representation ofthe p^titioner has not been decided so far, the concemed authority will decide th^ same in accordance with law without being influenced by the observatiot^s made in this order. The petition has no merits aAd the same is dismissed at motion stage itself. Consequently, M.W.P. No. 4917/2004 stands disposed of.^. -y- ^^ Stt011 "3ud%e U;,T'RJ—FS/350—IzaOOO—50,000- <^