,y-A*uw R^^, t,,,^ •^. y-s^ ^?-^-^ X^ XI-HC—78 ~y3t ^W\v\^, eitily'is, fs«niyy,< HWWI (h*ll<*> •^200 sn^rTRqi- (Tjqfgq^tT) 3H^I qil (({•fisb ^an a?n^T sti*IN> W<(IW ^rf^f 311^1 Writ Petltion (S) N0.5&4.7/20Q8 PETITIONER Shatrugi about 53 Korba, E RESPONDENTS 9 State of|Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary,/Deputy Secretar^, Deptt, ol Food Ciy.1 Supply and Consum|er Protection, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, phhattisgarh, Shri Go^erdhan Prasad Rathia, So-Not known to the Petjtioner, Aged about-Not known to the Petition^r, Presently working as Assistant Food Offiuer, pistl. Jaiijgir, Cliliatusgai-li. Writ Petition U/A 226 S.B. HON'BLB SHRI DHIREND|SA MISHRA, J. 13.10.2008 Mr. Pankaj Shnvastava, c Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Dy GA Grievance of the petitio Inspector and is preseutly pos| traiisferred vide order dated l' vide Aunexure P/ 1, just to acc| Assistan.t Pood Inspector, who charge Food Inspector, Korba b}| Lcamed counsel for the order has been passed witbl exigeucy, just to accoiiunodate ta-aasfer policy. '<BT<4E^<fl;T 'RFRff ^f 'feT^ ^f^<[$T(. i?atiWTOT^?T lan Verma, S/o Shri K.R. Veiina, Aged i years, Presently working as Food Officer, 'istt, Korba, Chhattisgarh. Versus of the Constitutton of India iiunsel for the petitioner. ar the State. ft)l- ^ier is that he is workmg as Food tted at Korba. However. he has been. p.9.2008 to Directorate, Food, Raipur jomiaodate his junior-respondeut No.2, Uas been traasferred ia his place as In- fhe same order. Ipetitloner subiaits fhat tiie a&resaid but fhere beuig aav administrative PIC respondent No.2, in violation of fhe ^r ^ESi^ ;!?',.<>"s«t> '^"N 'y^l-HG—JS 'ysi ^[W\v\if, ytiiy'ie, f°i<ni-Mli,< iffHdl thqich •^200 i? sn^i w R-ii'* ^wr STT^T fft-Hict) ^ SII^IipRT (ipi^^q) ^<ITW ^lfCT CT^I 2- Heard leamed counsel fo] sfil^!<rl<ti'l ^TH<nf ^ fs^ <Pn+$i< ^; aifiiii 311^51 the petitioner on adinission. It is setfled law ftiat trailsfer is not onlv an uicidence of service but also a condition of service. No Goveminent servarit or employee of a PubUc Undertaking has any 1 place or place of his choice. T^ie Court should orduiarily not interfere iu exercise of discretionaiy pii\ transfer uiider Articlc 226 offhl finds that eifher fhe order is in^ such traasfer, or that the autU were uot coinpetent aufhority tl\ ordinarily not interfere with fhe| Isdictiou of fhe State in the matters of b Constitution of India unless the Court ^la&de or fhat fhe service rules protubit jorities, who issued the transfer orders, () pass such orders. The Courts should Itraasfer order unless the transfer order is issued arbitTarily or ina]af}dely or in. violatiou of aay operative fe fhe traiisfer. Thus, haviag regard to f{ie above settled principle of law, fhere giudelines or fhe rules goveniin appears to be no ground for ir jurisdiction under Article 226 impugned traasfer order of fhel disiaissed at the admissiou staj ;gal right to be posted at any particiilaT iterfereuce bv this Court in exercise of of fhe Constitution of India ui the petitioner. Accordiugly, the petition is :e itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge +