Sms IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^^ / 2011 PETITIONER ^ \^- ^--:^^^"" ^•'"~'^^wsf"~^.s-^ . yt6su fe8,W< ,ecw VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. 1. 2. Jainath ram S/o. Thema ram, aged about 47 years, Asstt. Veterinary Area Officer, Veterinaiy Hospital Sitapur, Block- Mainpat, Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: - Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Surguja, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER(S) As mentioned in the cause title. PARTTCULARS OF THE RESPONDENT(S) As mentioned above in the cause title. n'ri' ;_-^ ,„<..:.-,,„»JESOtiBSWte. PPTSTIOh ':=. 1 a i i\-;lME:l RESPONDENTS H!GH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH : BSLASPUR WRIT PET'TiON (S'i N0. 4421 OF 2011 Jalnath ram Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Const'rtution of tndia) Singie Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Saurabh Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 08ih day of August, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), vi/hereby the petitioner has been transferred as Assistant Veterinary Area Officer, Veterinarv Hospital Sitapur to Veterinary Hospitai Ranhat, within the same district Surguja. 2. The sole ground of chatienge is that the petitioner is holding an executjve class-1!! post and as per the policy, the executive class-!!! emptoyee (govemment servant) cannot be transferred by the district level officer inc!uding the Coliector. !n the year 2007-08, in the similar sltuation, the State Government directed that the Assistant Veterinary Area Officer, Class-!!!, being executive post, cannot be transferred by the Collector. !n support of his contention, the petitioner reiies on a ietter dated 04.08.2007 (Annexure P-2), wherein ttie Director, Veterinary Sen/ices has written to the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Agricuiture (Veterinary) Department, stating that the Assistant Veterinary Officer, Executive Grade-111, cannot be transferred on district ievel, while seeking instruction from the Govemment. 3. On Derusal of the documents filed bv the petitioner, it is nowhere stated and no document has been fiied which states that the State Government has accepted recommendation made by the Director, Veterinary Services, on 04.08.2007 (Annexure P-2). Thus, the same cannot be held as binding orfinal. 4. The petitioner, thereafter; has made a representation on 02.08.201 1 (Annexure P-4) stating the same. which it appears to be pending consideration. The circular dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure P-3) has ^been brought to the notice of the Court, whereunder, the Collector, Asho^ Surguja, has written to ai! the head of the department within the district that non-executive class-«! and class-IV empioyees may be considered for transfer in public interest, if they are posted for a long period and the proposa! must be submitted at 30.06.2011 , nothing can be made out from the cireuiar in respect of the executive c!ass-!i emDioyees. On perusa! of the transfer policy, it is not clear asto whether policy is different Tor ciass-!!! executive post from ciass-!!! non-executive post. Thus, ! don't find any infirmity or Irreguiarity in the transfer, as the transfer order was passed in accordance with the policy decision after proper approva! from the minister in-charge. There is no chal!enge on any other iega! ground i.e. malice, infringement of statutory ruies and regulations or non-competence ofthe officer, who passed theorder. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, it is well settled principies of !aw that transfer is an incidence of servlce and it js for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as v/eli as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and reguiations. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and anothetf, Shiipi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothei2, State of M.P. and anotherv. S.S.Kourv and others , Mohd. Masood Ahmad y. Stateof U.P. & Ofhers Chief Commercia! Manager, Souih Central Railway, Secunderassd & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Ai.rports Authority of Sndia v, Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others^. Apptying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. Accordingiy, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. 1974(4)SCC3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 2 (1995)38cc 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007)83cc $12 6 (2009)^ SCC 337 Judge