^^•_\ 1 '"T JJ ^SK^'^/' T^^'^-HC—JS sn^sry, |(;.(j+ ?f^T afn^i^EiN? -. -\ -3^'3Tt<<(n<), 8itTl<1*Ks;Ts«'11'My sn^i '^RT (<yi^«(<^t) TSiiw ^tfer srr^r •*w[rt4i"t 'WICT tf fs^ <n><^i< ^•sifwsn^i PETITiONER: RESPONDENTS- 3. (IWrit Petition under Artici Raghuvir Singh Thakur, S/o Late Shri Ganpat Singh Thakur, Aged about 45 years, Occupation Sep/ice, work'ng as Sub inspector in E.O.W. Raipur, R/o A-17, Radhaswa.mi Nagar, Raipur (CG) State of ChhaStisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Director General of Poiice, Poiice Head Quarter, Raipur (CG) Deputy Inspector General of Po!ice (Administration), PoSice Head Quai-ter, Ralpur (CG) 226 of the Constitution of Ind'a) le Shri Dhirendra Mishra. J, 15-1-2009:- Shri Prashant Jaiswai, Sr. Advocate with Shri A|av Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. j Smt. Smita Ghai. Pane! Lav"'l'er for the State'resnondents. j-^^^;'r| Tnis is the third round of litig^tion^ The petitiones" had eariier flied WP(S) No.6Q3S/2Q07 agsjnst his transfsr order dated 9 March, 200S whereby the petltioner, who was posted as Subj Inspector in EOW, Raipur was transferred to Bastar R.ange. The aroresaid |?etition was disposed of vide order dated 10-10-2007 with iiberty to the p^titioner to file representation againstjTis-. ^:- fc-,<g^ l "'sy:' I 3 "W!p::/ '"^ "-<;-^/ ^•' '^issssSS.HC—JS '3^'*ll<IIM'i|; yA<-f'>IC, RlMI+iy WWi SR*(Rft sn^i'w R-fi<ti. 'c^IT 3ff^ »*fftft 3(1^1 ''R^ (lj?iyi<^) ^wiw^asii^T <*i^ld4t-< '£TF??^^ "fe^ TfSf^R ^'affimati^t transfer order before appropriate aijithority and the said authority was directed to consider his representation and| However, when the representati(] decided, .6387/2008, petitioner again ap^roached this Couri by way of WP(S) {i of by this Court vide order dated 17-11- was aiSDosei 2008 again granting liberty to the jj respondent No-2 and respondent N| within a period of 3 weeks from th| way, representatson was decided| rejected vide impugned order dated, Learned counsel for the ias served for a period of 2 yeai decide the same in accordsnce with iaw. n submitted by the petitioner was not letitloner to fiie fresh representation before 3.2 was further directed to decide the same i date of receipt of representation. !n this by the Director Generai of Police vide impugned order of Annexure-P/1 dfeted 5-11-2008 and the representation was 5-11-2008. petitioner submitted that the aforesaid reDresentation has been reiected 4/ithout apDlication of mind. The petitioner in the EOW, Raipur whereas it has been erroneousiy mentioned in the saidjorder that he is working for the iast more than 3 years. it is also mentioned jthat the transfer order has been passed in accordance with the transfer policy|though from perusal of the transfer order, it wouid be evjdent that it was passecj in the month of IViareh during ban perlod. It Is settled iaw that transferjis not only an incidence of service but aiso a condition of service. No Gov4rnment servant or employee of a Pubiic Undei+aking or employee of any oijganization has any legal right to be posted at any particu!ar place or place of (lis choice. The Court should ordinarily not interfere in exercise of discretiona|y jurisdiction of the State in the matters of frsnsfer under Article 226 of the (tonstitution of India unless the Court finds that either the order is malafide or |hat the sewice ruies prohibit such transfer, '^ "%'"^'' %SessSS":6XI-H£—78 ^^'^T^RP?, (*.Tt)yti4; facll'M^ 3tI^T ^lK;-< TOTiRRWWTOi' Baive *(W?(T «t*tKR 311?5T TR^' ('yi-l*^) tWIW^lfeiW^I -I ^ti*(l?l*fttl T^S^ i^ fs^t' ^N^K i? 3?^>r srfer or that the authorities, who issuedl authority to pass such orders. The| view of the above settled the transfer orders, were not competent Courts shoutd ordinarily not interfere with the transfer order unless the transfdr order is issued arbitrarily or malafideiv or in violation of any operative guideiin^s or the ruies governing the transfer. principie of !aw, 1 am of the view that no ground for interference by this Coiirt in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constltution of India in ti^e impugned transfer order of the petitioner is made out. Accordingiy, the petiticjn is dismissed. ,4,., . — Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^