M\3 BS .€/=/^l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) W.P.S. No. 53/6 Qf2006 PETITIONER ^ ..-Ts. -•••** ^>-"^.>"^ '.^''..''--^^y--"' '..- -O' IRov^ ^y" ^ RESPONDENTS ^ %^ :- Emil Lata-a, son ofLate Shri Habil^ Lakra, aged about 44 years, resident ofH 1/9, Narmada Nagar, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS :-1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, General Administra- tion Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, G.E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 2. Collector, Raigarh, Dista-ict Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), <t.y •$" 6-' 3. S.N. Rathore, Additional Collector,. Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ± /\F^ Sisffe Besch: Hon'ble Slni Satish K. Agaihotri, J. Petitioner ETni1 Lakra Respondents State of CIAattisgarh & others. Shri H.B.Agrawal, learaed Senior Advpcate wifh Shri ParLkaj Agrawal, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri. V.V. S. Moorfhy, Dy, Advocate General wifh Sm.t. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 & 2. < The petitioner, in the present petition, has assaited fhe ameaded transfer order dated 12.9.2006 (Aiuiexure P-2) whereby the mitial transfer order dated 1.8.2006 was amended to the effect fhat fhe petitioiier was transferred to the Ofiice of fhe Additional Director, Laiid Reconis and Setfleiaent, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 2. The undisputed facts, ia nut-shell are that tlie petitioner is a State Admmistrative Seryice Officer posted as Additional CoUector. The petitioner was workiug on fhe post of Additional Collector, Ramanujgaaj pursuaut to the order dated 21.12.2005. Thereafi.er, die petitioner was relieved to join the new place of postmg i,e. Additioual CoUector, Raigarh pursuaat to the traasfer order dated 1.8.2006. s*? 2_ The respondent No. 3 also happens to be a Meniber of State Adininistrati.ve Service, who was graated senior scale in fhe cadre. He was traasferred v~ide order dated 28.6.2006 (Ann.exurcP-4)'from. Raigarh to Jashpur as Additional CoUector. The said order dated 28.6.2006 was thereafter caaceUed by order dated 30.6.2006 (Annexure P-5) aad tiie respondent No. 3 contiaued to reiaain on fhe saiae post as Addi.tional Collector, Raiearh.. By fhe impugned order dated 12.9.2006, ftie order dated 1.8.2006 whereby fhe petitioner was transferred as Additional CoUector, Raigarh was canceUed and the petitioner was tcansferred on the post of Additioiial Director, Laad Records aad Setdement, Chliattisgarh. Sbri H.B. Agarwal, learaed senior counsel with Shri Pankaj Agarwal for the petitioner submits fh.at fhe unpugned order dated 12.9.2006 has been issued to accommodate aad adjust fhe respondent no. 3 as Additional CoUector, Raigarh. Thus, fhe action of tiie respondent/aufhorities is iaalafi.de, arbitraiy and uiu-easonable. It is fiirtlier contended fhat fhe order cannot be ameaded during fhe baa period as per fhe transfer guidelin.es dated 26th May, 2006. I have heard leamed counsel for fhe petitioner and perused fhe records appended to fhe petition. The petitioner has not established msda&de, T.. unreasonableness or arbitramiesS by any document or aiiy other evidence except on the basis of self servia^ stateiaent ia ftie pleadiags to the extent that the nnpugned order aad other orders passed earUer clearly establish fhat fhe impugned transfer order was passed with malice, and as such, fhe sam.e was uureasonable aad arbitraay. The respondent No. 3 was posted as Additional Collector, Raigarh by oider dated 30.6.2006. Thereafter, by order dated 1.8.2006, fhe petiti.oner was posted as Additional CoUector, Raigarh, It is clear fh.at fhe subsequent order dated 1.8.2006 traiisferriiig fhe petitioner at Ra^arh was passed without considerm.g fhe fact that respondent No. 3 was already working as Additional CoUector at Raigarh. Therefoie, it appears fhat it became necessary to pass fhe impugued order atnendiae fhe earlier transfer order dated 1.8.2006 which was not capable ofbeiag anplemented. The order dated 1.8.2006 was accoidi&gly modi&ed and a fresh order dated 12.9.2006 was issued giving proper posting to fhe petitioner. The Order dated 1.8.2006 was passed to post fhe petitioner at a place where no vacaucy was available. Hence, it is not established fhat ffae impugned order was passed iu exercise of inalafide on the part of the respondent/aufhorities or fhe same was arbitrary aad unreasonable. The petitioner has not assailed fhe iinpugued order on any other ground. -A The traasfer guideUaes dated- 26-05-2006 clearly provides for am.endinent/can.cellation of fhe trausfer order iu co-ordiaation wifh fhe Cbief Minister. On bare readiag of the impugned order dated 12-09-2006 (Annexure P-2), it is clear that the impugned order was eudorsed to the Additional Chief Secretaiy to the Chief Muister. It is sufficient compliauce ofco-ordiaation vrith fhe Ctiief Minister, Thus, the iDipugaed order is just aad proper and ia accordan.ee wifh transfer guidelities. It is weU setfled principle of law that traasfer is aii iacideat of service and it is for the em.ployer to decide as to where a pardcular officer/eiaployee be posted keepiiig iu view pubUc iaterest as weU as adiiunistiative exigency. This Court has lunited jurisdiction to iuterfere jii fh.e transfer inatter aud fbis Court caa iaterfere only ia fhe case of proved aiala&de, noa-coiapetence of auftiority passing the transfer ori.er and traasfer order not toeiag ia conformily with fhe rules aad regulations. The petitioner/ eiaployee caiuiot be permitted to remain. at one place, forever, by Court orders. For the reasons aforeiaentioned and as a result, fhis Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- . Priya Satteb^f lud^ ,iboW