(L^ ii&&..t IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. /^ 3 / 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS .^ ^ ^/^ ^iy ^;" \v ^' s^ri <?• '^ //" / Arun Kumar Netam, S/o Late Basant Lal Netam, Aged about 58 years, Deputy Ranger, Posted at Narayanpur Raage, Aikeda Circle, Narayanpur Forest Division, Distt. Narayanpur-(C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretaiy, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) 2) The Consen'ator of Forest, Kanker-(C.G.) 3) The Divisional Forest Officer, Narayanpur Forest Division, Narayanpur-jC.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 & 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1<^ i0 ><s An.in Kuiaar Netam. State of Cbliattisearh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hoa'Me Mr. Satish K. Aguihota-i, J.) Sliri Praftul Bharat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridliai-, Paiiel Lacyyer for the respoadeiits. Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challengiag the order dated 30.6.2009 (Anaexure P/l), whereby the petitioner bas been tran.sferred from. Nai'ayaapur Range, Circle - Ekda, Narayaiipur Forest Division to Dantewada Forest Division, on adniinistrative tround. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subniits that iti fhe year 2007 fhe petitioner was proinoted on the post of Deput5r Raiiger and was posted at Narayaapur. By fhe impugned order dated 30.6.2009 the petitioner bas been tran.sferred to Forest Division, Daatewada. As per fhe provisions of Rule 14 of tlie M.P./C.G. Class-III (Non Muusterial) Forest Service Recruita3ieat Rules, 1967 fhe seniorifcr of the petitioner (Deputy Rangers) is iiiaintained at DivisionaS Forest Offices fcr the pui-pose of furtlier proniotions. As the petitioner is traiisferred froin Narayaapur Forest Divisioii to Daatewad Forest Division, his seniorit}' would be adversely afFected. The traasfer is also agam.st the traasfer p^Ucy ofthe GoverD-m.ent for fhe year 2009- 10. The petitiouer is 'at fhe verge of retireuient, tlierefore, the tra.usfer inav afFect fhe settlemeut of retiral claims of fhe petitioaer. 3. Leamed counsel appeanag for ftie respondents/State siibniits fhat by tlie impugned order dated 30.6.2009 as niaay as 39 Deputy Raagers have been tran.sferred, out ofwhoia, sonie have been transferred froin one Forest Divisiou to other Forest Division. As tlie petitiouer is at the fag end ofhis sendce career, the grounds i-aised by the petitioner of afFectuig the seniorihr aiid proiuotioaal avenues due to transfer order inay not be of inuch help to fhe petitioner. 4. I have heard leamed counsel appeariiig for the parties, perused the pleadings and docuiuents appended fhereto. 5. This Court ia Aalekh Kuinar Devta Vs. State of C.G. SB others1 held as under : "12. In view of fhe facts and circimistances of fhe cases, it is clear fhaf ia. fhe present cases, seniority of the petitioners mauitauied at District level wiU not be disturbed after transferruig thein, because the next post ofprom.otion is Sub-Auditor i.e. State Level Cadre and fhe consideration ofproinotion to the post of Sub- Auditor is based on their State level seaiority, prepared for the purpose of promotion. The petitioners have furfher no right to reuiaia posted at a particular district and fhere is no chaBenge on fhe ground of luala fide or violation of any statute, regiilation, and rule eto." 6. A pention for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18773/2005 (Shyamlal Chaudhari Vs. State of Chhatdsgarh & others), filed agaia.st fhe order in. Aalekh Kumar Devta (supra} was dismissed on 23.7.2007. 7. !n fhe present case the petitioner has failed to estabU.sh that by transfer the chances ofproiaodon would be affected. He has not inade out a foundation asto which is fhe next proinotional post, frora which cadre/seniority proinotions can be inade and the persoas eatitled for proinotion coine froin which pipeline. 8. The petitioner has iniserably faited to establish that the sefvice career of the petitioner would be prejudiced by the impugned trarisfer. No ruaterial has been produced in support of fhe contention of fhe petitioner fhat if fhe petitioner is transfen-ed his seniorily will be affected. Thus, the contention is rejected for waat of niaterial. 1 2005(2) C.G.L.J. 160 1 •^S-ase .t 9. In view offhe foregoing, ia fhe opiniou ofthis Court, no case for iaterference is warranted. Even ofb.erwise, it is weU-settled priaciple of law that trausfer is aa uicidence of service and it is for the einployer to decide asto where a particulaT officer/einployee be posted, keepiag ui view pubUc iaterest as weU as adininistrative exigency. This Court has liaaited jiirisdiction to hiterfere with fhe transfer matter, except ia fhe cases of proved nialafide, non-coinpetence of auftiority passiai the traiisfer order aad not being in conforiaily wifh fhe rules and regulations. The petitioner cannot be permitted to reniahi at one place forever. Under the provisious of service niles, eraployer has att the powers to post an eiuployee at a particular place ia view of public iaterest and adimnistrative exigency. (See B.P.Rayeippa v. State of Teuiul Nddu euid einother2, Shilpi Bose ^Srs.) and efhers v. Steete ofBihar Ss another3, 11. Others6). The Suprem.e Court iu Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others7, held fhat "In a matter of transfer of a govemiaent eniployee, scope of judicial review is liinited and the High Court would not interfere ivifh aa order of tran.sfer lighfly, be it at uiterim. stage or final hearing. This is so because fhe courts do not substitute fheir own decision in the inatter of traasfer."' There is no challenge to fhe impugned order on aay ofher permissibie legal grouuds as afore-stated, wan-aiitm; interferen.ee wiih fhe impugned order. For the reasons as afore-stated, fhe petition is disinissed. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge " 1974 (4) SCC 3 3 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 4 (2004) 4 SCC 245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 6 (2007) 8 SCC 150 8 SCC 337