(m AFK /o ‘9- 0a HIGH SQURT OF CHHAT'HSGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETmOM (5} NG.1880 GF 2Q09 Anand Prakash Ekka, S/c Late Shfi P.T. Ekka, aged about 48 years, District Education Of§icer, Amb§kapur. Disti’ict Surguja (CG). Vemus RESPGNDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the $ecretary, Department of School Education; DKS Bhawan, Mantfa‘aya, Ramw (CG). 2. The AdditionaE Secretary. Deparimént of Schoo} Educaticng DKS Bhawan, MaMraiaya, Raiiauf {CG). ’3. RP. Badgotya, District Education Offlcer. District Korea (CG). 4. Chief Eiecticn Gfticer, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). (Witt patition under Article 226 6f the Censtituticn of india) Singla Bench: Hon’bte $hri Satish K. Agnihctri, J. Pteseat : Shri Saurabh Dangi, counsel for the petiticnei. chri Y3. Thakur, Dy: Adv. Generat for the State. GRAL GRDER (Paesed on this 10m day of Apfil, 2009) By this petition, the petitionet impugns the order elated 2-3-2009 (Annexure—P/‘ll whereby the petitioner wcrking as ln-charge District Education Ofiieer has been transferred frem Ambikapur to Kerea. 2) Shri Dangi. learned counsel appearing 0h behaif of the petitioner. would submit that earlier by order dated 27—6-2008 (Annexure — Pi3) the petitioner was transferred tram Kerea to Ambikapur and thereaher witheut any rhyme er reasen the petitioner, by the irnedgned order dated 2-3-2003 has again been transferred within a eeriod at 8 months from Ambikapur to Korea. Learned counse! challenges the vaiidity of the transfer order on the following grounds : firstly, there is enforcement of code of conduct; secondly, it amounts to frequent tranefers; third the transfer has been made only to accommodate the respondent No 3 and :orrrthly oiroula: dateo 12-6-2008 xAnnexure — P/2) orovrdes that there shouid not be frequent transfers of an employee heionging to scrST category. 3) Law in case of transfer is Well settled that the Court should irrterfere oniy in those oases wherein there is a complain of male tide exercise of power. infraction of rules, regulations anti competence of the officer concerneo passing the impugned order. The petitioner is not atleging any male nde exercise of power except that this was done only to escommodate respondent No.3. The reasons to estabiish male tide are not cogent and ssifrcient. Mere statement that the order has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.3 is not found proved, as by the impugned order t2 more officers have atso been transferred. So far as the administrative exigency is concerned. the same cannot be a suhject matter of judiciai review unless the contrary is proved. The petitioner has failed to prove the male tide. Thus, the impugned transfer order is not vitiated on aecaunt af imia we exercise of powei. 4) The courts or tribunala which are appeuate authoritie3 $houid refrain from cansidering the mcefies af ihe administrative needs ana' requiremenis of the s§tuation cancémeé. (See Staie 6f UP. and afhers vs. Gobardhan Lai‘. 5) The Hon’bie Sumeme Cour? in Mehd. 55aseod Ahmaci vs. Seate ef ii? and others; summed up ihe scepe of iniefference in exercise of its diecretienary iurisdietien under Anieie 228 ef the coneti‘iution of lne‘ia. as uncie'r : ‘ (14) n sen 402 ' 1 E3007 8 scc 150 ’ “7. The scope ef judicial review of transfer under Articb 226 of the Constitution of India has ' been settled by Supreme Court in Rajendra Ray v. Union of indie, Nationai Hydroelectric Fewer Caren. Ltd. v. snri Ehagwan, Sfafe Bank of indie v. Amer? Senyel. Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the supreme Conrt‘ the Ailahabad High Court in Vijay Pa! Singh v. Siate e? UP, and Onkar‘ Nair: Tiwar! v. Chief Engineer, ii§mor Im‘ngafr'en Deprr. has heid that the principle of law laid down in the aforeeaiol decisioris is mat an order of iransfer is a pan of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinariiy by a court of law in exercise of ite discretionary jurisdiction under Artiole 226 uniess the court flnde that either the order ls male nee or that the service rules prohibit such transfer; or that the authorities who issued “the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.“ 0'0 ) Gow& J x \ ‘ r ‘ ‘ 7 6) Appiying the WéH settEed iarinciple$ af law la§d dawn by the 5up3’eme Caurt in var§ous cases to the facts af thé xiase on hand. wherein the ‘mab tide aliegeii by the petitiener hae mt been waved and there is no ehatlenge 'te the impugned transfer order on the ground cf infractien at rutee er 'nen-cempetenee of the emcer passing the transfer order. The tt—aneter policyrcircutar ie mere guieelines to be abeerved by the etheere whtte paeeing the orcters. The transfer whey/cheater is net mane‘atery in nature and dees net attain the statue at the service rutes. Thus, this petitien atoes not warrant any interference by this Court. ”f; Thus, thfs writ petition being tievoid ef merit is aceerdingiy dismissect' rt the motion stage itsetf. I, ‘i V sd/_ ‘; Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ 1 ‘1 i r Judge