IK THE HIGELCOURTW JODICATURE AT BILASI>CR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION NO.S^^" ( /2005 PETITIONER y ^SM>> $?y ^\^>"\ \,<*"' ?S;o^\-' -c.tl? \os>. 'y^y Pradeeo Kumar Vasnik, S/o. Sfari N.R. Vasnik, Aged about 42 years, Presently workinK as SDO, Mini Mata Bango Ganal, Sub- Division No. 13, Water Resources Department, Champa, Distfict Jamgir- Champa(C.G.) ^ ' VERSWS ^- RESPONDENTS ^ CLgBK l^ ^R.G.8^ ,^^ i^s^as / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Deparfement of Water Resources, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Departme&t, Mini Mata Bajago Canal DivisMn, District Jarygir- ^ ChampafG.G.) .'., 3 vrsrr EETITIQN uNBEaR AS ICLE ''^ 1:3^ ss^s^^ '^^ ^aiy^wmsi'K^s^^^EiBSwwsss-^^&BSs^^^K NJSaNMRiEi;aoiaM8N lI^n^..'J@Ma8UEiBBisaiiBE it>3B:l:®S B S "^:^ "'^B.^^^^ K~3§giss R w i »•' i' IL. -J ^ HIBHCOURTOFGHHATriSGARHATBILASPyR WRtT PETITION N0.5271/2005 PradeepKumarVasnik Vs. State of C.G. & others. ORDER 1iil;!:li ^ :'^^^S^S^— J.,^3^^^ :F???9 S13? ~ ? & HIGHCOURT OFCHHATTiSGARHATBILASPUR WRiTPETITION N0.5271/2005 Pradeep Kumar Vasnik Vs. State of C.G. & others. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advcoate, with Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri A.S. Kaehhawaha, Dy. Govt. Adv., for respondents no.1 &2. Shri KA. Ansari, Sr. Advocate, with Shri N.P. Kelaand Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, counsel for Shri M.H Khan/intervener. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties^ 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition chatienging the order of transfer on ttie ground that it was issued during the ban period and there was no approvat/concurrence of the Chief Minister. The petition was filed on 19/10/2005. The petition is on three grounds, namely, (i) that the petitioner has been subjected to frequenttrahsfer;(ii) thatthe transfer is against the guidelines dated 18/8/2005 asalso against the circulardated 6/8/2003 during the midsession and (iii) that the transfer is withouttheapproval/concurrence of the Chief Minister. 3. Return has been flied by the respondents supported by an affidavit and thedocuments. 4. Counsei forthe respondents submits that the ailegation of the petitioner that he has beensubjected to frequent transfer is not corred as his first transfer was made on his own request. It issubmitted fhat the matter was before tHe coordination committee and it is'afterthe approval pfthe Chief Minister the impugned transfer order dated 13/103005^has been passed.It is further submitted thatso far as the cireuiar dated 18/8/200S is concerned, it is for the transTersof Class tlland Class IV employees and the J.-^—. petitioner is a Class II Officer and as far as the circular dated 6/8/2003 is Kl^l^ E~-Ii•nii23^;'-*t w^ws :i;-^:i^S^;^^S;§^^^?3^^^^;^^'35SS:3^i^i'£8''^sj^.fc^ ^^^?^;i^^:^?^^S^^ssSi®^§I^S^}i?^NB%lAS^^ii^ concerned, the same isonly a guideiine and iherefore the petitionercannot ciaim to remain posted at a particular place of ttie basis of said circular. Itis also submitted that the new place of postingofttiepeUtioner isonly 8 km, away from the earlier place of posting. 5. Lastly, it is contended by the State counsel that the reiiever of the petitioner has already assumed the charge on 17/10/2005 in place of the petitioner and the petitioner dellberately did notjoin him as party respondent. 6. The intervener has also filed an application for intervention. Shri Ahluwalia, counsel for ttie intervener submifs that the intervener was transferred and posted in place of the petitioner. He further submits that before the petition was filedon 19/10/2005, the tatervenerjoined theofflce on 17/10/2005. The joining report is filed as Annex.A/1. He alsosubmils that knowing futly well that the intervener has joined the OfRce, the petitioner did not bring this fact to the notice offte Court. 7. The Apex Couft'mVnecaseotGuiratElectricitvBoardvsAtmaram Sunooma/Posftam reported in ft889) 2SCC 602 held that transfer is an incident of service and employee has no rlght to be posted at a particular place and that transfer cannot be evaded merely on the ground of pendency of representation or difRculties. The Apex Courtfurther in the case Afra^ Shiloi Bose vs. State of Bihar {eported in AIR 1991SC 532hasheld thatthe Courts should not interfere with transfer orders when are made In public interest or on administrative grounds unless they are made in yiolation of mandatory statutory rules or on the ground of mala fide and that even where executh/e instructions areviolated, the Court OFdinarilyshSII not interfere and the concerned transferee employee should approach the higher-ups in the department for the relief. in thesame decision,it is alsq hetdthat even where the transfer is effected on request of employees to avoid hardshlp, the sameshoutdnotbeinterferedwitnbytheCourte. I :." Ji] JhiN sa. ^:,' 8. In the case of UnionoflncSa vs. S.L. Abbas reDorted in f1993) 4 SCC 357theApex Courthas held that no employee has any vested right toseek transfer to a place of his choice. Furthermore, in Sfateof Machva P/acfesft vs. S.S.Kourav reported in (1995) 3 SCC270 the Apex Gourt held that the Court cannpt decide reiative hardship; it is for the administratron to appreciate on a representation that may be made by the concerned empioyee and that hardship caused to an employee from trahsfer is notand cannot be a ground for judicial review of fte transfer order. To the same effect is the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. H.N. Kirtania reported in H989) 3 SCC 445. In Abani Kanta Rav vs. State of Orissa reported in 199S Suml.(4) SCC 169 , the Apex Court opined that a transfer which is an incident ofservice isnot to be interfered with by the Cburts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vih'ated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle goveming the transfer. In Chief Geneial Manaaer (Telecom] vs. Raiend/a reported m f1995) 2 SCC 532. the Apex Court handeddown the opinion that in the absence ofstrong and compelling grounds rendering the transfer order improper or unjustifled, suchan order should not besubjected to judiciaf review particulariy whenat the other place to which the transferee wanted to be retained or posted, there were complaints against him. 9. This Court while deciding Writ Petition No.2007Q004 (Ferro Scrap Nigam Limtied vs. B.P. Sharma and ottiers) on 6/1/2005 hasdealtwith the matter of transfer. In para 21 of the said order, it was held as under: "21. Haw'ng considered ffie rival confentiwi of ffiie leamed couns^foriheparties,in# opjmcmofyvs Court, ffie hvnsfer (S an exigencyof service. tt 15 we// sefffed {ftafno goywnment servant or employee af pubSc unctertaking hasany legsf right fo fee postedfoieveratany onepartieularf^ace as itis nofonly an incident biit a condiSon of seivice, The contenfion of ^mecf(xwnse/;Ayre^ppncfent(ftafhecartntrffeefransfenBdfe not comecf. Thai parf o/ ff?e oroter <rf tt®leamed IndusWal Court is notsusfainable. The fincSngofthelfKlustrial Court ffiiat respondent n6.1\cannotbe transfefredlsagainstfffecanon of servicejurispnKfence." A 10. This Court has also recently considered the aforesaid issue regarding transfer of an employee in W.P.No.4960/2005 W.O. Atulkar vs. State of Chhattisaarh & Offiers) and has heldthat it jswell settled by a catena of decjsions of the Apex Court and High Courte ttiat transfer of a Government or public servant who isappointed to a cadreof transferablepost from one place to another, is an ordinary incfclent ofserviceand, therefore, does not result in any alteration of conditions pf service to his disadvantage and therefore, transfer cannot be said to be punitive in nature. Transfer isan incident of service andan empioyee has no right tobe postedat a particular place. An employee holding atransferable post has no legal right to insist for his posting at a particutar place of his choice. Transfer of pubtic servant made on administrative grounds of public interest shouid not be interfered with by the Courts unless there is strorig and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of mandatorystatutory rules or on the ground of mala flde or on the ground of lack of authority. The Courts orthe Tribunalscannot sitas appellate Court on the orders ofthe transfers made onadministrativegrounds.Thereasonforthis self-imposed restraint is that the wheels of administrationshould beallowed to runsmoothly and the Courts or the Tribungtsare not expected to interdict the administrative system. 11. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has been tfansferred on administrath/e groundon account of exigency of service. The transfer order is passed by order and in the nameof the Governor and the SMe Govemment has implemented the same. State Government is empowered to consider the cases of the persons working in the government department. It is also submitted that fhenew place of posting of the petitioner is only 8 km, away from the earlier place of posting. Apart from the IBuaft^ w f'i^ ^ ^ PW^liatt4 'SSM uoiysod sitij^ •pWU9^o:>9i>uu9S9ifff»sspuoBjxa |aw)Bfls»<upB y> ^sa^ff 8(^? u pssffK/ &(apuo (pns fsuiB&e se 'fuauiaBBUBU.tffaAc^uKiat^foj^j^uosKs^wm^j Sug(^ss<^ 'Ss^uotflne ^B|»8CW^ a^^/^ IfBnoqi SB '^y^.^^ff^ B W sjQpm ipna ^DfM aapa^H fouma ^llBiuioti s^tinciuj. wff wsynooi atff 'J3/sue4 iWsXW^^itic^sitoisuwdAK^fyBts/piioff^diAU! aq otpafBfsjosSKuaxQsipa^BWfo auioofno ueaq o; (AMO^S si .isifsu&y /o j^uo UB ss^tif] •uoiiatfsiWWpe ayqnd aqf w AiMiaiwffa- {xw fsaijl^iit oyqnd uf 60) Ajessaaau va3W9s ^ uoiupuwi B^yntf 'yiapiwi ue' Afuo yw si jat.ifouBC^ai^Wowcufsfsod^WQ^u^ * MS^o^a^RwiiiodelBSa^dwa.leirmuedBfojafsua^ ^!S^ot4 SHif6weidMawd j^nayed SIK) Xue ^rfaAa^p^sodE^i^}(^/B^<<^{^Sut^ ajqnd e /o a^afclui^ jo fueAias iu3Wuw^°6 ON, :s^iii<ysepawQsqoseM)f'st'Z30St(^OOZ) •OUB y i^Buegaa wsfXiwBf 'sft •s/o y eipui /o uoiun (fl 7;^^ a<^s^i®/eupw^ flwo(/s S^OTOO ot^saifu xsS9inlapinB^B^Affa ekifOWXfei<»Aw^sew suo^»f EtfBU/ /[q ;p^Bj^ ffl ^suesfl^p ^apto afl ssalufi •apiaap c» ^i«x^B a^B4CTflu^ e(fl ^ J^GW e sy aiaifM payod puBpatiaisuB^ sq fiproys 0(^4 "?? (flW Wwwii JOUUB3 fWV^^^ 'S^I^MnB aM^9(fo ^\W^^ Ul afvswSijoa^siiswf^lsiASf.^suB^jOjspwQwssaiun •j^u^^a^ BtluiiaAOS ^saidKiuud y> suijKau paquosaid /ueftuafaBjifWMsafyeiBUi^qpwsiAJO X/uBg/B /(jUBSp aq O) UMWqs sia ss^urr SfJnoo Stff Aq tifiM pafapafui 9ff 0; )W S! aSHAiaS JO Q9U9pK)U! UB S! t{3!tfM JQfSUW^ :Mo|sqp8tonbS!i|3!t|M')uetu8pnfpjeseiBjOj7B.iedo}8peui si 8ousj8^a'(e9SSAA3SyiVWOZ)SJ9i|»opuBAapued pBSBJdJBpouiea •SA UBIBBUBS BAB|BAp!A BAUpu.ax .(o sseo syl U! ynoo xsdv sitt y> uoispspeiiiynpo sjifl;(osoBoy e4l plii)6n<uq saiyed sij} jcy lasunoQ •ei •passed ueeq seii SOOZ/Ot/SI. paiep jepjo jafsuej} f%yBndui!^i# .i^siuiirti ^siqo sy} ^o |BA<udde aifl jsye si4! pue aeujtuiuoo uoiieyjpjpoo sytsjoisq SBM jsneiu iey} pjoosj eqi tUoj,(}nosuJoqs!t!'p8iue3uo3sustS!U!|fl|^8l408ifllo83usjjn3uoo/|eAojdde sifl viotffim psssed uasq sey jeipjo sift }BIB uosBBs||e sifl se je( og -tsenbsj UMO siq uo speiu SBM js^suefl }&iy siy se pgjjoo tou s! JS^SUKI} luanbsj^ 0} pspsfqns uesq sei) gt| iei|} jeuoi}!isd 841 y> uoi}eBs||e siflse jei 03 'Zi. •83U}0 94} psuiof ApBaj|e se4 jauosjisd ei)t jo ?oe|d ui peisod uosjsd 84} 'SAoqe 'f'i.T"!?"''1''^-":1"?-.^'^'"' 6 P/H- Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan (2001) BSCC574'." Applying the above principle, the present is not a case where the transfer order is required to be interfered with, especially when the transfer is wjthin therangeofSkm. • 14. Perusal of the cireular daied 18/8/2005 goes to show that if is for the transfers pf Class III and Class IV employees andthe petitioner is a Ciass II OfRcer. As far as theguidelines dated 6/8/2003 are concerned, these are the executive instructions. They do not appiy wherethe transfer is madeonthe administrative grounds due to exigency in service. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to remain posted at a particuiar place of the basis of said cireular and more so when he is transferred to a place which is onty 8 km. away from the earlier place ofposting. 15. in view ofttie above discussions and in view ofthe law laid down by theApex Court in theaforesaid casesand further the fact that the transfer is an exigency of service, not a case for setting aside the transfer order while exereising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india. However, the petiUoner may make the representation before the competent authority, which shall be considered and decided on its own merits in accordancewith law. 16. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. ^•^ y^y^ V-