ijn '"anral^ ^ ::^ ^•»A S^i Ef fA IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitlon N0. 4i& / 2004 PETITIONER \^ , £2.^>^- '".-/<t^ r.^ o cW^ -••'• • ^i>-1^ ^ /"'^3f"' A% ••"^'..-.•^' <»%<-' '^•^- RESPONDENTS Ku. Laxmi Navrang, D/o. R.L. Navrang, aged about 51 years Occupation-Lecturer (Hindi) Govt.Higher Secondary School Korba (C.G.) R/o. Purani Basti Korba (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through :- Secretary Triable Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 . The Commissioner Triable Welfare Deprtment D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer Korba (C.G.) 4. Smt. Indu Agrawal W/o. not known, occupation-Lecturer (Hindi) Govt. Higher Secondary School Bhilai Bazar , Distt. Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •-< i "s ^•.,'7 ;b'i^ Ku. Laxnii Navrans -Vs- State of Cbliattisgarh ancl others Miss Sofia Khaa, counsel for tlie peutioner. Shri Yashwaat Siagh, Goveniiaent Advocate for the State/respondents 1,3 & 3. Shri B.D.Guru, coiuisel for respondeilt 4, (23.02.2005) j' 11 The petitioner is a Lecturer. She bas chatlenged her ti'aa.sfer froiu Govt. Higher Secondan' School Korba to Govt. Higher Secondarv- School, Bhilai Bazar. She has dade aTlegatious tliat iii fact the trausfer order was not receive.d bv her aiid she cculc conie to know about her transfer on 25.9.2004 when a news iteai was published iil ne\vsuaper Daiaik Bhaskar. (2) It is subinitted that the petitioner was perfonning weU iu her institution aad fhe results in her siibject i.e. Hindi were ahtays good. It is also subinitted that no adverse reiuarks regardmg fhe work perform.ance ofthe petitioner were there, evea after this, the petitioner has been traiisfen'ed. It is further submitted fliat tl-ie fC(i C L) petitioner is aa uniiiarried lady aged about 51 years aad she is not haviag a good healfh condition. She is sufferuig froro. higli blood pressure and diabetes aad she is being regularly treated by tlie doctors at Korba. She has also annexed a Medical Certi&cate as Alinexure P-2. It is subrr-itted that fhe traiisfer is agaiast fhe poU.cy issued by fhe State. It is also subniitted that tlie proinoti.on of the petiti.oner is akeady due aad she is likely to be proinoted by fhe next vear as per her senioriftr and if she is tt-aasferred froni her present place ofposting, her seuiority would be affected. (3) The State has entered appearan.ee and has filed jomt retuiTi on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3. The State has denied tlie material facts. It has been. contended tliat the transfer has been ruade on administrative ground and fhe petitioner has not beeu able to plead or substaiitiate about the nialafide, arbitr&riiiess or anv ofher Ulegalit\' iu the onler of transfer, fherefore, fhe writ petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed. (4) Along with fhe retui-n, the State has also filed a copy of the traasfer order dated 24.9.2004 which ia fact, is a genersil traasfer order pertainiug to 33 persons. 2n the said order, die name of flie petitioner finds place at serial nuruber 30. (5) Retum has also been filed on toehalfofthe respondent no. 4. She has stated that the traasfer order has been issued oa tlie ^o, C i 3 adiniaistrative grounds aud ui pursuance of the aforesaid order, she had already joiaed at her new place ofpostiug i.e. Govt. Higher Secondary School, Korba. She has also prayed for disuiissal of the petition. (6) I have heard fhe learaecl couusel for tlie respective parti.es at lengtb aad have also perused the records. (7) First of all, the point of wiit jurisdiction of the Court as to iaterfere iii the order of transfer is to be considered. lu the seriss of judgiuents, fhe Apex Court has held fliat the traiis:Ee.r is sm. iiicidence of sei-vice and is not to be interfered wifh bv tlie Courts uiiless it is showii to be cle'.arlv arbitranr' or visited bv inalafide or infraction of £my prescribed norms of pruiciples gove.i-umg Uie transfer. Refernng to the decisions reported ia 2995 1993 S.C. 2444 {Umon ofJndtc -v- S.L. Abbas}, the apex Court has laid down this law ia tlie matter of Kendriya. ViAytsletHta. Scuiflathan -Vs- S.C.W. 5553. In ttus judgmeat itself, ttie apex Coiirt iu. latter part of para 4 nientioaed the observations rendered ui the matter of Union. of India &, athers -¥s- Jam.arS.tm. Debmifith that ;- 'Nc' ciovemment servant or em.pioyee of a public urtdertaking has any legal right to be C '+ 3 postedfor ever ai any on6 particular p'sace o'r place of his dzoice since transfer of a particuiar employee appointed to (he dass or category of transferable posts from one plaoe to another is not only an inddent, but a condition of seniice, necessary too in public interest and effidency in the public ddministration. Unless cin order of transfer is shown to be an outcorne of mcdafide exercise or staied to be in violaiion of statutory provisions prohibiting any such ti'ansfer, the CouTts or the Tribunals normally can.noi, interfere with such orders as a matt.er of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituling their own decision for that of the einployer/ management, as against such orders passed in the interesi of aclministrative exigendes of fhe service concemed . The apex Court furfher referred to the decision reported ui tib.e matter of Nationfd Hfi&roelectric Power Corpn. LtS., -vs- Shri Bheuiwan, 12001] 8 SCC 574. (8) The above series ofjudgraents pronoiuiced by the apcx Court at various points of time go to show that a veiy limited scope is given for iuterference wifb. au order of transfer passed ly tlie coiupetent authority. If fhe jurisdiction and fhe authority ai~e not chaUenged nor fhere is any chaUenge on fhe ground of violation of anv statutonr rules then ualess fhe malafide, arbitrarmess or extraaeous considerations are established bv coming fonvard with defiuite pleadm.gs aiid by 'uringuig sonie evidence on record, it cannot be said that the trau.sfer whicli has been shown to be purely on the aduiuiistrative exigency wiU not be accepted to be a normal trausfer. ^"w.' c s ^ (9) In fhe present case, it. is adinitted fhat fhe petitioner was workiag in Korba snice the year 1994. Tb.e petitioner has not raised any ground of eifher ioalaS.de or arbitraTiness on the pait of the authorities coucemed. She has onlv raised the ground Tiiat llie order is in violation of fhe policy i.e. the guidelines issuecl for tb.e transfer. (10) I have already referred to the decision rendered ui tbe iaatt.er of Union. of Jndia an6 others, AppcHan.ts v. S.L.Abbcs, in which Hon^ile tlie Apex Court has held fhat fhe guidelmes issued by fhe Govemiaent do not confer upon auy eiaployee legaUy enforceable right. Tlie order of transfer inade even without followillg tlie guidelm.es caunot be iaterfered wifh by fhe Court ualess it is visited bv aiala&de. or is inade in. violation of statutor\r provisions. (11) In fhe present m.atter, as stated above, fhe groiind raisecl fhat tlie poli.cy has not been conipUed with, is no grouiid for iitterference toy fhis Court. About ftie personal dif&culties of the petitiouer Hke unsouiid health. etc. TIiis Court can only say tlia't to consMer the grievances of above nature, eiaployee aisy Eiake suitable appUcation/representation to tbe eiaployer aad the eruployer should decide fhe sanae in accordaace witli law. ( 6 ^ (12) This Court is not i&cliued to interfere ia fhe laatter of such trausfer in which neifher the inalafide nor arbitrariness is pleaded or established nor the trausfer is shown to be in violatiou of anv iS- statutory Rules. The petition has no nierits aad flie saiae is disniissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 23.02.2005 ,5^"u?a/- .an^BBi