OF( CfO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) c^ WRIT PETITION N0. S'CHO OF 2006 PETITIONER: , ...4^ Y^^ '^>\^"v' ^^^^y ^•^w^ ..•••'.'?'^" Janakram Patel, SonofI.P. Patel, Aged about 43 years, Presently working as Assistant Engineer/SDO, Water Resources Division, Champa, JBC, Sub- Division No.3, Birra, District-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ^•^>y...••'" ^' i'\.-^''....-•'' ^~^'' ys;'' RESPONDENTS: VERSUS A. .2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Champa, Minimata Bango, Canal Division No.2, Champa, District-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) P.K. Chauhan, Assistant Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Minimata Bango, Canal Division No.2, Champa, District-Janjgir Champa, (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2SS6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, PROHIB!TION_AND FOR OTHER SUITABLEWRIT OR WRITS, ORDER^RORDERSt DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner Jai'iakraai Patel Versus Responclents State of Chhattisgarh & others •ff. Post for order on // ' October, 2006 Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Ba&^a" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitiQD (S) No._5040_of2006 Petitionei-: Jaiiakrain Patel Versus Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh &, others ?Sa^e Beach; Hon'ble Mr. Jiistice Satish K. Agnihotr!. Shri Maiuudra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate wifh Sbri Akhilesh Dalpati, Advocate for tlie petitioner. Shri V. V. S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.3. O R D E R ( H^)ctdber, The foUowing orier ofthe Coui-t was passed by Satlsh K. AgnihotrE, J. 1. The petitioner, in the iiistaat petition, assails the impiigned order dated 6.9.2006 (Annexiu-e P/4) whereby the oi-der dated 4.7.2006 (Aunexure P/2) was inodified to the extent tbat the petitiouer was posted to tlie post of Assistant Eugineer (Rupan) in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Minicaata Bango Cauai Division No. 2 Champa ( in place ofthe respondent No.3). 2. The undisputed facts in nutsheU are tbat the petitioner is einployed as Assistant Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer in Water Resources Departnient, Govenitnent of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner vide order dated 4.7.2006 (Annexiire P/2) was transfen-ed froni the post of Sub Divisional Officer, Minimata Bango Canal, Sub Division No.2 - Baradwar to the post of Sub Divisional Officer, J.B.C. Sub Division No. 13 Biiraa, Champa ^.. (iti place of Shri Tapas Kuiuar Majunidar). ' The petitioner accordnigly jouied the new place of posting vide coiBBiunication dated 27.7.2006 (Annexiire P/3). 3. Thereafter vide order dated 6.9.2006 (Annexure P/6) fhe earUer order dated 4.7.2006 (Annexxu-e P/2) was inodified and the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer (Riipain), in the OfBce of the Executive Engniecr, Miniaiata Bango Caaal Division No. 2 Champa i.e. in place ofthe respondent No.3. The petitioner has impugaed the order dated 6.9.2006 in ttus petition on the ground that fhe order is tainted wifh inalice as fhe same was passed to accominodate and adjust the icspondent No.3. The impugned order is contraiy to the transfer guidelines dated 26.5.2006 (Annexure P/5). The trEinsfer order is arbitraiy, unjustified, nnreasonable and without public interest or administaltive exigency. 4. Shri Manuidra Shrivastava, leanied seaior counsel with Shri Akhilesh Dalpati, learned counsel appearing for tiie petitioner submitted that fhe iiapugned order is bad in law, arbitrary and iinreasonabte on the. grounds stated (supna). 5. Shri V. V. S. Moorthy, leamed Depuly Advocate Genei-al, appearing for the respondents No. l and 2 o»i the contrary subaiitted that the order passed was due to the adinmistrative exigency hi public interest and tbe trausfer order contains not only ftie names of petitioner and icspondent No.3 but by the said transfer order, placeinent of foiir niore persons were efFected. Leamed counsel further submitted fhat fhe transfer guidelines dated 26.5.2006 clearly provides for inodification/caDCeUation of the transfer order in coordiaation of the Chief Minister throush ^' the Chief Secretaiy. la tlie present. case the unpugned order was passed iil coordination with the Chief Miaister as is evident from the iinpugned order itself which was endoised to the pnncipal Secretary to the Chief Minister and further fhe impugned order is not a traasfer order biit adjiistnient of the placeiuent of the petitioner and the respondeiit No.3 within (he saine district. 6. It was fui-tlier contended that tbe avennent offhe petitioner to the effect that the tiaiisfer orderwas passed in exercise offhe powers tainted wi& malafide, inalice, uni'easonableness, contraiy to tbe transfer guidelines is witiiout any basis as there is no niaterial to siibstaatiate the averments except the bald statements inade ia fhe petition. 7. Having faeaid leamed counsel for fhe parties aad haviag perused the docunients aiuiexed fhereto, it is evident that fhe petitioner has fafled to establish any inalafide or maUce against the i^spondents. It appears that ttie iiapugned order is uot a transfer order but the placeinent within the district and the same was done due to adliuiiistrative exigency in the public interest, There is no violation of the ti-ansfer giijdeUaes dated 26.5.2006 which clearly pi-ovides for cauceUation/modification offhe transfer orier ui cooixlmation with fhe Chief Mmister. The present impugned order is bearing endorsement to the Prmcipal Secnetaiy to the Chief Minister as requu'ed under the transfer giiidelines. Thus, there is no breach oftlie transfer guidelines. 8. I have examined the facts of fhe case. The aBegations, stated above, have not been established in fhe facts of tlie case. The Supreme C^>urt in fhe Case of Kendriya Vldyalaya Saagathaa 'I Vs. Dainodar Prasad Paadey and others1 has observed as under:- 4. Tiansfer which is aii incidence of service is not to be iaterfered with by courts unless it is shown to be cleariy arbitraiy or visited by inala fide or infeaction of aay prescribed nonns of principles goveming fhe trausfer (see Abani Kaiita Ray v. State ofOrissa1. ualess the order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is inade in violation of operative guideliaes, &e court canuot interfere with it (see Uiiion of India v. S.L. Abbas2), Who should be Iransferred. and posted where is a inatter for ttie adininistratiye authority to decide. Unless the order of trajisfer is vitiated by mala fides or is aiade iii violation of any opeiative guideUnes or rules fhe courts should not ordiaarily mterfeic wifh it. In Union of Sndia v. Janai-dhan Debanath3 it was obseived as foUows : (SCC p. 250, para 9) "No govei-ninent servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since ti-ansfer of a particular einployee appointed to the class or category of trajisferable posts froni one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of sei-vice, necessaiy too in public interest aiid eJBiciency in the public adniuiistratiou. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be aii outcoine of niala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statatoiy provisions prohibituig aiiy such transfer, the coiirts or ttie tribunals normaHy caonot interfere with such orders as a inater of routine, as tliongh they were the appellate aufhorities substituting their own decision for tliat of the eniployer/iiianagemeDt, as against such orders passed- ia the interest of adininistreitive exigencies of fhe service concemed. This position was highUghted by this Court in Natioual Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ud. v. Shn Bhs^waa4." w 9. tt is well settled principle of law that transfer is an in^cident of service and it is for the einployer to decide as to where a pai-ticular ofiicer/eiuployee be posted keeping in view public interest as weU as admuustrative exigency. This Court has lunited jurisdiction to interiere in tlie traiisfer niatter and this Coiirt can interfere only iu the case of pnoved nialaGde, non-competence of authority passing the transfer orcler aiid transfer order not beini in con&nnity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/eniployee cannot be pennitted t6 reinain at oae place, forever, by Court oriers. 10. The petitioner has not niade out any case for interference by tliis Court in tlie present transfer. 11. For the rcasons aiid as a result this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (2004 (12) SCC 299)' Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Thakur