Aw" 7 C (w \ SINGIE EERH w IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 5" MP? /2005 a“ Petitioner Vishnucharan Sonwani, aged about 4O yeafs, son 10f Shri V Siyaram Sonwani, Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Goharapadar, Vikas Khand Mainpur, Tahsil — Gariyaband, Distt. (Chhattisgarh) ‘ Raipur VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1 . State of Chhattisgarh, through — its Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, tDau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) /2. The District Collector, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The Block Education Officer, Block — Mainpur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) f WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 01) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIOINER As mentioned in the cause title. W XI-HC-78 m WW; mmo Lu? 9044 3W3“??? (W) awaim mmstm mmm‘#ww aiWanéal mmW anésr Mainpur Tehsil Gariaband, Disxrict Raipur to Primary School, Bazari, Vikas Khand, Mai‘npur’ has challenged the validity of hi3 tranefer order which vas issued on 3 1 / 8/ 2005 and communicated vide order dated 21/ 9/ 2005. The only Contention cf learned counsel for the petitioner is that the daughter of the petitioner namely Ku. Mukti Sonwani i5; studying in Class—XII in Gaharapadar and it is difficult for the ‘ patifionar to manage 1161‘ stuHdies. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Bazari is at a distance of 15-16 kms. from Goharapadar. The law in relation to interference bV the Courts in the matter of transfer is now well settled. ' The Apex Court While dealing with the matter of Kendrikya VidualauaVSanqathan mVs- Damedar Prasad Pandey 2004 AIR SCW 5563 observed that the transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be. clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mafa—fide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer. (please see Ambam' Kama Rm; — 2 1 I 10 I 2005 Shli AN. Bhakta, leanled qounsel for the patitioner. Shri Akhil Agrawal, Panal Lawyer for the State/ respond6ms. Heard. By way of this Writ Petition f11€d undEr Article 226/227 of ' Constitution of India, the petitioner, who i5 working on the post of ASSistant TeacherMlas hem transferred from Middle School, GoharapatiarNikas Khand, mté a XI-HC—78 mmqi$ u... m ”)V W200 metmiéafa? amméatm Wam'é'ww aiwmar posted Where i$ a matter for Unless the orciei‘ of tranSfer 111 Union of India & others —Vs- Janaraan Debanath & another (2004) 4 SCC 245, it was observed a$ follows: l Vs- State of Orissa v 1995 {Suppl} 4 SCC 169]. Unless the order of t transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of operative guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it. {See Union of India — Vs— SL. Abbas AIR 1993 t C 12444). Who should be transferred and the administrative authority to decide.- ‘is vitiated by mala f1de or is made m violation of operative any guidelines or rules the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. “No Govemment servant or empioyeoof a public underiaking has any legal right to be posted forever ai xlar place or place of his choice since any ane panic transfer of a pa or category of another is n01 service; ‘necess in the pubiic iransfer is sh exercise or s the Tribunals i rticular employee appointed to the class transferable posts from one place to only an incident, but a condition of my too in public interest and ejficiency administration. Unless an order of own to be .an outcome of mala—fide ated to be in violation of statutory normally cannot inte1fere with such. provisions prohibiting any such transfer; the Courts or orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authm'ties substituting their own decision for that of the employee/mmgement as against such order passed this Court in Nationat Hydroelectric Ltd. —Vs~ Shri Bhggwan 120011 8 SCC in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by Power Corgnt 574. N" fwH/Of‘ amtw (Wm) mmoisaanés “ XI-HC—78 WWWW 11111731 mq-fm Nfs’oglaf m mzoo melW (gafgmg) néeri amm am m mmW anésr mmtrwm em§qan€er Admittedly, the petitio ner is posted on a transfsrablé p0$t petitiomir could not point out any azld lcalned counsel for thr ground of malaflde or a round which may Show that the impugno‘d transfer has been .ffected violating any statutory rules. I am not inclined to in rfere in any such orders. The petition has no m it. The same is dismiSSed in limine. SO far aS personal diii'l ulties of the petitioner are concemed, the petitioner is free to f concerned authoritv and if ‘pETitioner, thé‘. concern€d at accordance with law. CC. as per rules. a fresh representation before the such a representation is tiled by the thority shall dispose of the same in Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ma