SSSSS!99tS ^^l^i^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WMT PETITION (S) No. 273 of2007 R.K.Mishra VERSUS State ofChhattisgarii & Otfaers WMT PETITION (S) No. 274 of2007 ShahidAli VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others Post for order on /^ -7-2007 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge /^-7-2007 :v^ ^'B^^iSW'S-?' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WBIT PETITION <S) No. 273 of2007 R.K.Mishra, S/o Late Shri N.Mishra, Aged about 43 years, Presently working as Sub-Inspector Police, P.S. Gorella, Distriet Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Seeretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, State ofChhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3) The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter, Raipw (C.G.) 4) The Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5) The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Bilaspur(C.G.) WMT PETITION fS) No. 274 of2007 Shahid Ali, S/o Zakir Ali, Aged about 52 years, Inspector, P.S. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.), R/o Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh - Throu^i the Seeretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, State ofChhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3) The Director Gena-al of Police, State of Chhattisgarfa, Police Head Quarter, Raipiu- (C.G.) 4) The Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur(C.G.) 5) The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTIQNOF WDIA (SB: Hon'bleJusttceShriSatishK.AgnUwtri) Shri P. Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Stm Adil Minhaj, Advocate forthe petitioners. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Govemment Advoeateforthe respondents/State. ORDER .'? (Passed on this Ih dayof July, 2007) 1. Writ Petition No. 273 of 2007, filed by Shri R. K. Mishra, working as Sub-Inspector, Police Station - Gorella, District - Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the first petitioner') and Writ Petition No. 274 of 2007 g&^^^zs'.fB^a.S^^^^^.s^^^^^^^^^^-^^ ES^^^^^^?. filed by Shri Shahid Ali, working as Inspector, posted as Station House OfBcer, Police Station Kota, District- Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the second petitioner'), arise from the common impugned order dated 30.12.2006 passed by Ihe respondent No.2, whereby the first petitioner was transferred to Jagdalpur and the second petitioner was transferred to Beejapur. Thus botii Ifae petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The indisputable facts in nutshell are fhat the first petitioner was transfen-ed from Reserved Center, Bilaspur to Police Station Gourella and second petitioner was fransferred from Police Station Masturi to PoliCe Station Kota vide order dated 9.10.2006 (Amieieure P/l). Subsequently, according to leamed counsel for fhe petitioners, both the petitioners were transferred on account of the mid-term Legislative Assembly Election held on 4.12.2006, wherein Ae candidate of the mling party lost 1fae election, vide impugned order dated 30.12.2006, passed by tiie respondent No.2 i.e. the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), to faraway naxalite affected places. 3. Being aggrieved,tiie petitioners have filed these two petitions separately on the ground &at the impugned tramfer is aetuated by malice on the part ofthe ruling party. The next contention ofthe petitioners was fhat botii the petitioners have hardly completed 80 days at the old place of posting which is also contrary to the Iransfer policy of the State Govemment. 4. Shri P. Diwakar, leamed Senior counsel with Shri Adil Minhaj, leamed counsel, appearing for the petitioners, relying on several aewspaper clippings, wherein it was stated that the Bilaspur Police was pimished 6. by the ruling party for defeat in the hustings at Kota, would submit fhat there was no complaint against fhe petitioners and there was no reason to victimize the petitioners for defeat in the election, oflfae mling party. Leamed counsel for the petitioners, raising the above grounds, sought for quashing ofthe impugned transfer order dated 30.12.2006. On the contrary, Shri A. S. Kachwaha, leamed Govermnent Advoeate, appearing for Ifae respondents/State would submit that there is no basis to aliege that fhe impugned transfer was caused due to political considerations. Ths impugied transfer order clearly indicates that along with the petitioners, who were posted in Bilaspur, several other persons were also transferred to other districts and there was no maliee as alleged by the petitioners. The transfer has been made in the public interest and due to fhe administrative exigency. It was farther contended that as per the transfer policy for the year 2006-2007, the Iransfer order was passed in coordination, therefore the allegation ofviolation ofthe transfer policy is baseless and without any factual background. The petitioners are competent ofBcers and as such, their services were required in district Jagdalpur and Beejapur, as there was severe law and order problem. Having hearing leamed counsel for fhe parties, I have perosed the pleadings, documeiits appended fhereto and the original proceedings of the Govenunent which was supplied in the course ofthe argument. It appears that the transfer ofthe petitioners was initiated by the Home Minister which was approved by the Chief Mimster, as required under the transfer policy 2006-2007. In the notings, it is not found that the transfers of the petitioners were actuated by any other extraaeous 9. considerations. It appears that the transfer order was passed in the public interest and due to the administrative exigency. The contentions of leamed counsel for the petitioner that the transfer ofthe petitioners was made due to the defeat of the mling party candidate in the mid-term assembly election at Kota, is not supported by any document, except some newspaper clippings, which cannot be the basis for establishing the fact that there was any malice or eolourable exercise of powers in transferring the petitioners. Thus, the same deserves to be rejected. It is the prerogative ofthe State to decide who should serve where. It is not the vested right ofany employee in the State to insist that he should be allowed to serve at a particular place or any particular post. With regard to the second contention that the petitioners have served hardly for 80 days at the old place ofposting, this does not faU within the purview of "frequent transfers" because the petitioners were earlier posted sufficiently for a long period at a particular place and one transfer, within 80 days, in publie interest and due to the adnunistrative exigency, cannot be condemned as 'frequent transfers'. This Court, vide order dated 19.1.2007, directed to maintain status quo with rfga7 d lo fhc postinp oftht- petitioners, as obtained on that day. K was brought to the notice ofthis Court tiiat the Senior Superintendeirt of Police, Bilaspur, flouting the mterim order of this Court, relieved the petitioners from the old place of posting to join the new plaee of posting. In this regard a notice was issued vide order dated 16.3.2007 passed by this Court. The Supermtendent of Police, BUaspur has filed an affidavit on 27.3.2007 indicating that the ex-parte relieving orders were passed on 10.1.2007 as the first petitioner had proceeded on leave for three days on 7.1.2007 and the second petitioner proceeded on leave from 1.1.2007 on the ground of ill health, therefore they were not available on duty on 10.1.2007. The interim order dated 19.1.2007 passed by this Court was communicated to the Superintendent of Police on 24.1.2007. There was no violation ofthe interim order passed by tfais Court. Thus, it cannot be held that there was any deliberate attempt on the part offhe ofiicers to defy or disobey the order passed by this Court. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another Vs. Siya Ra*u and another has observed as under. "...... No government servant or employee ofa public undertaking has any legal ri^it to be posted forever at any one particular place of place ofhis choiee smce transfer ofa particular employee appointed to the class or category oftransferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order oftransfer is shovm to be an outcome ofmala fide exereise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the eourts or the tribunals normally cannot mterfere with such orders as a matter ofroutine, as thou^i they were appeUate authorities substituting their own deeision for that of the employer/management as against sueh orders passed in the interest ofadministrative exigencies ofthe serviee conperaed. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan." 11. The Supreme Court in 1fae case of Rajendra Roy Vs. Unlon of India and anotfaer^, has observed as under: "....it may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a strai^rt-cut mamier. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for sueh inference there 6 must be fimi foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such mferenee caimot be drawn on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions....." 12. In the case ofGautam Prasad Nalk Vs. State ofC.G. & others this Court held as under:- "6. .........it is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service aad it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular offieer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interference in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the cases of proved mala fide, non-eompetence of authority passing Ifae transfer order and transfer order not being m confomuty with the rules and regulations. ...." 13. In view ofthe foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in both the petitions to interfere with the transfer order dated 30.12.2006. Both Ifae petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 20047S.C.C.4051 AIR 1993 SC, 1236s 2007(2)C.G.L.J.643 Thatau-