iM?'" IN THE fflGH COURT OFJUDICATtIRE ATBILASPUR GmiATTISGARH WRITJETITIQNNQ^^1DF2Q05 PETITIONER: 3&&sj- <^ S. N. Bajpai, S/o Late Sfari R. R. Bajpai, Aged about 58 years, presently wdrking as Jr. Engineer (Civil), Attached to Control Room under East Dn. Raipur (GG), R/o Behind Ratan Hotel, Sumaiigalam Apartment, Pace - 2, Flat No. DF1Q3, Link Road, Bilaspur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS -^l Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, Danganiya, Raipur (GG) JomtSeGretary (P)-1, Chhattisgarh State EleGtricity Board,RaipuT(CG) Executive Direptor, Chhattisgarh State Board,Raipur(CG) Electricity The ChiefExecutiveEngineer, Cbhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipur (CG) IBi ra WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 QFTHE CONStITUnO OFINDIA 1. PARTICULARSQFTHEPETTTIQNER, *:"; ea ?1 'p^ As shown in the cause title. 2. PARTICULA.RSsOETHERESPQNDENT. Xi-HC-78 *ti*i«ia>TRp ^xST;:!ITO'R5?I, y"^i'^< 1<», ReM'My x^^....,...., sn^STWiR-ii* cCTW^CTiCTiW ^?T <WP (yilgq.d) 27/10/2005 Shri Sameer Bshar", let Shri Pankaj Shrivasta^d Heard on admission. Thepetitioner, who is •Contr-ol Room, Ci-ty East Cii^i Raipur to the office of the by the impugned order challen9ed the vaiidity of the petitioner submits that.j Jonuary 2006. The home Bilaspur, therefore, in the s\ to circular Annexur-e P-2, he District vide clause 8 of the The law. in relation to of tronsfer is now well se^\ the matter of Kendnkya dah'ed tltis Pandey. 2004 AIR SCW 5& an incidence of service is n< unless it is shown to be clea iflfraction of any prescrib< transfer. Wease see. Ambam <hwTd41-i *)!*)<A)'tr"feL3'(R)^i'< ^grf^q^iAw rned counse! for the petitioner. t, Panel Lawyer" for the State. working on the post of Junior Engineer in ision, Raipur h'ds been transferred from jExecutive Engineer (Civil Division), Bhilai 02/09/2005. The petitioner has transfer order. Learned counsel for (•he petitioner is to retire in the. montii of District of the petitioner is District lid transfer of the petitioner, according i«ouldhaye been transferr^d to his home kforesaid circular". i^iterference by the Courts in the matter ^d. TTie Apex Court while deialing with Sanciathan -Vs-_Damodgt' Prasad Vid^vilgya g^ observed that the transfei* which is t To be interfered with by the Courts •ly arbitrary or vitiated.by mah-fide or d nor-ms of principles goveming'the Kanta Ray -Vs- State of Orissa - 1995 • aa ag sss K88i ^ :ms *imw?PW ^^^w^,^^ms, Ric^roy •kir...ri-^}c>f. ' ^Z-S SI^CTcBTt^IW "<rai3iit?TaRiw| 3n^?Tq??P(i^fg^) ^200 Swirw^iftCTsnSsT •CT-'lfoiil'IIIHrfr^fal^<R|^K ^3)^*T3Iltg (Suppl.) 4 SCC 169). Unless •fhe order of tromsfer is vitiafea-Byffld/a fidew is made in violation o(f operative guideiines, the Court cannot interfere with it. (See Unio^ of India -Vs- S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444). Who should be trans^erred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of tronsfer is yitiated by mala fide orj is made in vioiationof operutive (my guidelines or rules the Cour'l's should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Unjon of^ India & othe] -Vs-^ J'aiwrdan Pebanath & anothe!" (2004} 4 SCC 245, it was otjserved as follows: "No Sov^rnment seryant or employee of a public undertaking hd^ any legai right to be posted forever at any one partiifular place or place of his choice since trwisfer of a^articubr employee appointed to •the class or category df transferable posts from one place to anofher is n^t only an incident, but a condition of seryice, neces^ary too in pubtic interest and e-fficiency in thepublic adi^inistrcition. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be dn outcome of mala-fide exercise or sta+ed fo be in viola^ion of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfel^, the Courts or 1fse Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as tlfough they were the appellate au-thorities substituting \their own decision for that of the employee/mai^agement, as against such order passed in the interest \if administrative exigehcies of the service concemed. Tfiis positipn washighlightedbythisCourtin NatiOfial HyVroeledric Power Corpn, t-td._ -ys- Shrl Bhawan (ZQPD 8 SCC 574. iS/2P05-20,000 :'^; XI-HC-78 \i'OTi'<<iAiiw<i,(!>-nl<H<i<»,Ririi<Hy<! 1TOc5TW*[T^ """••"""••••/"••••••"•••"?— aii^OTiRq? (i^fg^) sniCTgiTR'ii'b asiTsn^CTip^N ^ nA Since the learned any ground o^ malafide or not inclined to interfere in s ? The petition has no ms 'However, the peti- najS'esentflitibn before the ci C.C. as per rules. coutisel for the petitioner could notpoint out nfringement of any statutory rule, I am (jch order of transfer. krit and the same is dismissed. ioner would be at liberty to file >ncernedauthority. ' 'piofo'fli fiinl'*f l^'^l'iRl'tdl'; ^aif^f.gi^?! SAL.S^ ast^ e^s>^e ^ <.' ^"s