r* f.lOd'- J. ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Sl No. ^64 < OF 2010. PETITIONER / ^ .••;^i.';- ^>^^^---- ^•^^:.;.:---"" ^^^I^-^\Q '^•-••""^ Hemant Kumar Verma, S/o. late Shri Bhimendra Kumar Verma, aged about 43 years, U. D. T. Govt. Middle School Paijani, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) VER S U S RESPONDENTS /\1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) ^2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) .-3. District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITU'riQN-OELlNniA—- -— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra PETlTiQNER RESPgNDENTS W.P. (Sl No.2645 of 2010 Hemant Kumar Verma Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA Shri Somkant Verma, counset forthe petitioner. Shn Bhaskar Payasi, P.L for the State / respondents No. 1 & 3. ORAL ORDER (25.06.2010) Heard. (2) The petitioner was transferred from the Govt. Boys Mkidle School, Batoda Bazar to Middle Schoot, Paljani by order dated € -08-2009. Feeting aggrieved by the said order the p^ftioner had preferred W.P.(S) No. 4300 / 2009, which was disposed of by order dated 12-08-2009 (Annexure P/3). The order passed by this Court is reproduced as under:- UShri Somkant Verma, counsel fbr (fte pet^oner. Ms. Sunita Jain, P.L forthe State. At the outsef couns^ for ffie petitioner wants to withdraw the present petitton wiffi ftberty to file representation before respondent No.2 raising aff his gnevances against the impugned transfer order dated 6- 08-2009. He however subfrsts that the said authonty be directed to dedde the representation so made expeditiousfy. Counse/ for the State has no otyection ff the representation of the peWoner is decided by the authority concemed in accordamie with faw. -p.- ^ ^) Accordingfy, the peWton (s dismissed as wHhdrswn with the Siberty as aforesaid. tn the eventuafity of fitfng representafion by the petitfoner within a pertod of ten days fmm the date of receifri of copy of thfs ofrfer, (fte same is expected to be deckled withm a further period of three weeks from the ctate ofits recei^" (3) The petitioner thereafter moved a representation before the Distrtet Panchayat, Raipur, whteh has been decicted by the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 09-10-2009. (4) in the order decicting the petitioner's representation it was mentioned that since he was a surplus teacher <n the Govt. Boys tVlictdle Schoot, Batoda Bazar he was informed and was directed to opt for a particutar school and where he can be posted. On thls (nformation the petitioner opted for Govt. Middle Schoot, Baloda Bazar for his posting and thus he was posted in the said school. The representation has been dismissed by a detailed and reasoned order. (5) Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that his plea regarding the petstioner not being a surplus teacher has not been consklered. From the order passed by this Court in the eartier writ peAition it does not appear that the said plea was urged before the Gourt in course of hearing on 12-08-2009. Even otherwise the earlier wrft petition chalienging the orcter of transfer was dismissed as withdrawn with tiberty to move representation which the petftioner subsequently moved and has been disposed of by the impugned order. (6) tn view of the above, this Court does not find any illegattty in the ^ or<3er deciding the petitioner's representation. It js settled law that ^^•:\ '^^.., ^ ^ ~^:'. .^:\ 1 ^ '^^ '/' \^-:-'''';"' s''^"^:^.< - 2>- transfer of an employee is an incidence of service and it is for the authority concemed to decide which employee is to be posted at whteh piace. It is atso settled that judicial review against the wder of transfer js permissibie on iimited grounds i.e. when the order of transfer is viotative of any statutory proviston or is (^herwise tainted with mala ticle. No such ground for interference exists in this case. (7) There is no substance in the wrtt petition and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge >-