p..."--s3-E'N@ IWffiLE BE ^ c- .^•\0°' ^e^lB^---"-"""' daud--"9 IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BXLASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. '33l3 /2006 PETITIONER; /' 6.L. Sahu, son of LateK.R. Sahu, aged about 48 years, Sub Divisional Officer, Dongergarh Division, Khairagarh, Rajnandgaon. Vs / State of Chhattisgarh Through; the Secretary, Ministry of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UN&ER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INblA. RESPONDENT: XI-HC-22 3^' -^nwf, w^wKo, Rcllti^< *111WI ShtTTtff 3ii^l *4^.ch ^..^f.SM2!^. ^ 200 R*»d sn^rw R-fi+sn^T 9>*< «l6a sn^r ?<T(IRR flf?tT t>i<<fci<n-i ii*«iTfffei<'i<Riui< ^srf^rsn^r 291.6 7.7.2006 Shri B.P. Sharma, Adv. fl Shri Satish (Supta, Dy. ff| Heard. By this petition the peti correctness of order- dated as Sub Divisional Officer-, Oon9| post of Superintendent, ©omar-^ of time arbitrar'ily, maia fidet^ ^ovemment declared for the y^ The case of the petiti Divisional Officer in the Foresi he was transferred from Fore4 the petitioner joined there. order dated 3.9.2005 the Dongergarh i.e. pr-esent place 14.9.2005 and now the petition^ 9 months vide impugned order^ The said transfer order is in State Sovernment, as the "minimum transfsr should be m[ msde before compteting three ground of complaint, then it s| >r the petitioner. f. Adv. for the respondents on advance copy. ebvt i^-ioner hus questioned the legality, propr'iety and i.2006 whereby the petitioner, Mfho is workirg ^t'gar^, Khairagorh, has been transferred on the •ipo Forest Sonctuary, Raigarh within a short spsn and against the tranafer poiicy of the State fcar 2006-07. i{;ner is that the petitioner 'is working as Sub Department, firstly vide order dated 6.10.; |t Division, Durg to Forest Division, Bhanpur' and pTher'eafter, within a period of two years vide Ktioner was tronsferred from Bhanpur to of posting and the petitioner* joined there on ^r has again been transferr'ed within a period of dated 29.6.2006 from Donger-ga-h to Raigorh. c^ntravention of the transfer policy issued by the (4) of tha said transfer policy provides that ide and as far as possible transfer- should not be ^ears of service. If the tronsfer is made on the muld be made after conducting the preliminary (Ift^^f^) Clailse XI-HC-22 3^ 'fWWi, W^\WW, Rldl'My Sll^yi^aqi ll*fctTsn*ii<*>""""""""""""""""" g^ 200 Ri*^ sd^r ?>r f^TWSD^T shirouRfl 3|1^<1 6«l|igTfl)?tT <ni<<[ti«ni*<iiCTTffte^<Riwi< ^ari^iran^r \. enquiry and if prima-facie th< employee should be transferred^ I have heard learned Shri Shar'ma, learned <| trsnsfer" of the petitioner ha^ issued by the State Sovernm^nt therefore, as per decision of thj Vidyolayo Scrgathan Versus j; complaint is found correct, then only the couijisel for the parties. jounsel for the petitioner' submits that the been made against the operstive guidelines and that too without application of mind, Hon ble Apex Court in the matter of Kendriya C^modw Prasad Pandey ond others reported in (2004) 12 Supreme Court C^ses 299, the impugned transfer order be quashed. On the other- hand, Shrf the State submitted that ther-^ transfer has been effected oit 6upta, learned &y. iSovernment Advocate for is nothin9 in the petition which shows that the the ground of maiafide. The transfer policy issued by the Sovernment is n^rmally considered and the clause of transfer policy on which learned counsel that 'as -far es possibie transi\ provision that in any case fhe\ yeors' In the matter of transfl settled and as per settled law for- the petitioner is placing r-eliance envisages 'r should not be made', there is no mandafory efnployee cannot be tronsferred before three sr of a government emplcyee the law is almost he transfer order cannot be challenged uniess; (1) the same is passed by incom^etent authority; (2) based on malafide grounds or (3) contrary to the statutor^ Abbss reported in (1993) 4 S|! guidelines issued by the 6avev\ rules. In the case of Vs. S.L. CC 357 the Hon'ble Apex Court held thst 'the iment do not confer upon the employee !e9clty (tft^y^) XI-HC-22 sn^rw. f^iwsn^T stifwfffer / HWMI n>*1|t»> 3^ •<ii<ii<n<4, ®T(1<i'i6,lciefiyy Sll^,') f^ch W( 200 Ri*«A 3<[^1 SWIIWflfitT tran^fer enforceable right. Or-der of it is vitiated by malsfide or made Similarly, in the matter 01 report-ed in 2004 (4) SCC 245, th| " No government servant has am legal right to be place or place of his empioyee appointed to tl^ posts from one place to condition of servwe, efficiency in the public transfer is shown to be stated to be in yiolatioH ony such transfer, the cannot inter'fsre with sut though they were the ap own decision for that a9ainst such orders pas^. exigencies of the service^ In the matter of Abani 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 the Coi)i shown to be ctearly arbitrary or i; any operatwe guidelines or ruies ordinarily interfere with it", <ni<ilci<fl-l *<i*«i'lfffe^<R|+iil< ^?3»f^IT3TI^r cannot be interfered bv the court unless i|i violation of statutory provisions'. Unlon of Indie Vs. Janardhan Debanath i^ i-fon ble Apex Court held that; |or emptoyee of a public undertsking jiosted forever at any one particular ch|oice since transfer of a particular |e class or category of tr'ansferabie ^nother is not only an incident, but a ne|cessiary too in public interest and ladministration. Unless an order of bn outcome of mda fide exercise or of statutory provisions prohibiting courts or the tr-ibunals nor'mally. :h orders as a matter of routine, as )ellsrte authorities substitutin9 their of the employer/management, as led in the interest of administrative concerned". (ar!to Ray Vs. State of Orissa reported in •t held that "uniess the order of transfer is visited by mola fide or is made in vioiation of governing the transfer, the court should not (<fl^y^) XI-HC-22 sn^rw fiawsifer refffiiT SbHRiff Roshan/- 'j)° 3^ •<<i<iici<4, a-rfltf'is, fsldiuy 3il^| ^acb *<I*ICTI aiHicn """"""""'"""•""" TI^ 200 t^'b.A wA.w gwiwdfer -^. Sub-ctause (4) of Clause-; Sovernment dated 26.5.2006, <ss| counsel for the petitioner is placj an employee has been kept as transferred within a short span d^ that'as fsr as possible the tran| but there is no clear-cut bar in tl it is settled !aw that in the exig< employee can be tronsferred oj shows that he is working in the years he worked at Bhanpur and has been tr'ansferred out of th< there is nothina on record whicH an outcome of ma!a fide. The 1-ion ble Apex Court in the judgm) as such, I do not find any dismissed and accordingly, it is di Consequently, M.(W.)P. However", the petitioner- wj of the Sovernment by way of authority to consider the repres^ orders in accordance with the laA 'si)i<iI<'i41-itiiidTfffs<S <Riw< ^isri^irsn^r of the trmsfer policy issued by the State has been mentioned dsove, on which lewned jng heavy reliance that the minimum tenure of |3 years, whereas, the petitioner has been df 9 months. The said sub-clause (4) envisages i^fer should not be made before three years', r^'ansfer'ring the employee prior to Sysa-s and ^ncy of ser-vice or on odministr-ative ground an any time. The petitioner's service record Rcynandgaon district since 2003 i.e. for two ^hereafter he is wor'king at Khairagarh, now he district to another district i.e. Raigarh and shows that the transfer of the petitioner- is s|aid transfer policy, as has been held by the ints cited above, is not le9ally enforeeable and sufc^stance in this petition, same is iiable to be imissed. No|2539/06 also stands disposed of. ill be at liberty to bring this fact to the notice 'epresentation and it is for- the appropriate intation of the petitioner and pass appropriate Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge 1 lt3i •^l-ta-i/ ^