@ W @ / . \ f x \ ‘ : 2i! IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A'r BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [s1 No. é 3 ‘i /2006 PETITIONER :- Kumari Reba Rani Mandal aged 55/ years, D/o Shri S.S. Mandal, Occupation- Principal, Government High School, Doomartarai, block- Dharsiwa, District Raipur .[C.G.]. R/o A.-5 Radhaswami Nagar, Bhatgaon Chowk, Sundar Nagar, Raipur [C.G.]. VERSUS RESPONDENTS :- 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through —,/‘ ire/ Secretary, School Education Department, D.K. S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.]. Director, Public Instructions Q, V ‘ Raipur [C.G.]. District Education Officer, [D.E.O.], Raipur [C.G.]. Devendra Pratap Singh, Principalw/ Government High School Doomartar-ai, Raipur [C.G.]. WRIT PETITION UNDE ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA x r R XI—HC-78 Wm (W) EW,WW,W mmwéau/nam In 20 WWW mmm matmm WW%‘WW %W%H$H%3T ' 21.1Lg0w: Shri Rahul Bilthhary counael far the petitioner. Head on admision. Annexnre P-13. He further submits been created in the school as a re problems to the normal flmctioning the school, has arisen. He placed relimce on the decision of the Supreme court ' 'the matter of EP. Royappa Vs. Shite of Tamil Nadu and another reported AIR'1974 S.C. 555 and argued that‘the State action must be based on valid md relevmt principles and should not be guided by extraneous or irrelevant co iderations‘ and where the operative reason for State action is not leg'timate an relevant but is exu'aneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, No.4 was arbitrarily reiieved m This petition is directed against the order dated 16.10.2006 ofAlmexure P- 1 by which ole respondent No.3 has cancelled the transfer order of respondent No.4 dated 11.8.2006 - Annexure PAS and in pursuancc of me same respondent place of his 1ransfer and was allowed to rai where the petitioner is already posted same amounts to mala iide’ exercise of power and is hit by Am‘cles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in such cases the aEected public servant has a right to challenge the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petiti her submits that the order of Annexure P-l is in utter violation of the u'an‘sf policy of 2006-07 of Annexure P-l l, rationalization policy of Annexure P—12 as also circular dated 16.6.2003 because of the above order surplus has of which the financial and administrative 0 s a e XI-HC—78 mammm,m ‘ ..<¢9.&é.3.1}1.£9~é... umm 111200 m WW(W) mmfa'vrw WWW mwm WW§WW éswm School, Khamra and theremer 1 rationalization the transfer orders oi petitioner was posted as Principal against the vacancy caused dueto order of respondent No.4 has b V School, Doomartarai. Thus the p to work as Principal in the' said sc ' 5. The pctitioner has not p respondents in passing the order same has been passed arbitrarily as 6. Itistruethatinthematter held that even if a public servant is violation of Articles 14 and 16 arbitrarily or unfairly treated or State machinery. However, in the that the order of annexure P-l has petitioner. The order nowhere ah place of posting and therefore, this locus standi to challenge the imp respondent No.4 has been cancelled ’ 3. ‘ Ihave perused the impugned order, the averments made in the petition and ' documents enclosed with it. 1stant petition with the averment that she was 4. The petitioner has filed dw it working as Lecturer and was‘transferred to Government Higter Secondary tide order of Annexure P-3 as per the all the lecturers were amended and thus the at Government High School, Doomartarai trmsfer of respondent No.4 and the transfer cancelled and he joined Government High n . er apprehends that she may not be allowed l anyexpressmalafideonthepartofthe d xure P-l except vaguely pleading that the esult of bias or favoritism. E.P. Royappa (supra) the Supreme Court has an omciating position, he can complain of the Constitution of India if he has been cted to mala tide exercise of power by the ant case it is found that there is no allegation n passed as a result of male hde against the the. posting of the petitioner in the present urt is of the view that the petitioner has no gled order by which the transfer order of e e ' h l of o ' s a e r 'e ' t e s o XI—HC-78 'WW, m,W . .w.e..é§u/.b.g.»... WW In 200 mm (WW) WWEWW %31%tr3n%¥1 WW W WHFgam “\Z.’ Thus, the‘ petitioner has no force and thc same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. " ‘ 1 Sd/ 1 Dhirendr‘; Mishra : Judge P.T.O.