:'^. ^',,' •ft': I^ ^.^^-' ';?^5^ / '^•""' 1^ /^^ IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5'>6^ / 2010 Petitioner - •Dilram M^h^shwari^^^^^^a^ S / o Tahlti Ram MaKeshwari R/o V Godikata|Tahsil Pafhalgabn D.istt. %|Ua^hp):ur.j:.^\;;;:-;'' ;l Vei's-us,-..:;:; ::<::;;.:: ...l..^ Respondents /l. ' State 6f^©hliaftisgarhithroug^^ Secretary Agriculture! Departmeht, D. K. S Bhiawan Raipuri ^2; ' Sub divi^ipnal^^^^^^ A Patfhalgaon Distt. ^a ^3^^^^^^^^^^ develQpm|ent Officer Pattba^^^ Jashpur. \ WRIT PETITION UNPER ARTMCLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIAi < HTOH COIJRT OF GHHATTI80ARH AT BTJ ASPIJR PETITIONER WRTT PETITION r8) No. 5264 of2010 Dilram Malieshwgri. RE8PONDENTS VERS1JS State ofChhattiBgaA & Othors. WRFT pRTmoN iJNDER ARTICI M 226 AND 227 OP THR - CONSTmJTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'We Shri Satish K. Affnthotri, J. Pre^ent: Shri Parag Kotecha. Advocate tor the petltioner. Sliri Sha^haiik. TiiAur, Paiiel .LawyCT.for tlie SlateA-espoadexil No. 1 & 1. Shri Ravmdra. Agrawal, Advoeate for tlie respond^iit No. 3. ORBRR(ORAI.) (P^sed oa 02nd day ofSeptember, 201!) By tliis petition, the petitioner a dir^ctioB t.o the resposideBt No. 1 a.nd 2 to relieve the petitiosier m compliaace ofthe'wder dated 15«07.2010(Aimexiire P/l)^ whereby, the petitioxier, workmg as Seoior Agricultyre Development OfficCT at KaissabeL Disteict Jashpur, ha.s been traiisferr^d to the office of Semor Agrieuitore Development Office^ PattfaaIgaoxiL District Jashpiir^ an his own expesises. Shri Kotecha., leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner that durmg peiidency ofthis petitioti, the ord@r 15.07.2010 has beesi cancelled by order dated 10.12.2010 (Aimeiiaire R/2) and the petitioner has been deprived ofjoisimg at Patthaigaoix. The siibsequexit ca.ncdlation m witfa a malafide motive to ajccommodate the respondent No»3» OB tts^ otfaesr haisd, Shri Thakxir, lears^d Pasid La^yw aj?pearii3g for the State/respoiident No. 1 and 2 siibmtt^ that. the ord^r dated 15.07/2010 m respect. ofthe petitioner coiild not be givea effect to, Thus, it was thoii^it proper to cancel the order dsrted 15.07.2010 r' - z Amit which oould not be given effect. to for aboirt 5 months, Shri Tfaakiir flirtfaer siibmits that there is. BO malafid^ and ifthe traasfCT ofthe p^titionCT is canceiled, oiie perso^ may be respoiidesit No. 3, is boimd to be post.ed at a pla.ee whwe' th@ petitionOT was to be tra.iisferred as no place caa b^ left va.cant. 4. Heard leamed coumel app^armg for the- parties, pemsed th@ pleadmgs and dociiments appended thereto, 5. It m a.n a-drmtted positiosi that the impi^gsied tramfer dated 15.07.2010 has beea cancelled vide order dated 10.12.2010 andthe petitioner is contimimg at the original pla.ee of post.mg. The pctitiosier has not sixbmitted aay documwt. m siipport of hi^ aliegaticm of mala fide^ excqrt the self-same stat^nesxt, wych is aot syfficient to hold that there was a mMafide exercis^ ofpower, To e^ablish mala flde, there? should be strong cogent reasons, Thii^ the allegation ofmalaftele is 'iirsfoimded, 6. 8o far as allegatton of a^commodatitig the reBpondeiit No, 3 m concemed, there is sio merit m the case as m place ofa-xi employee who has been tra-mferred^ some other employee is to 'be po^ted on a.ccoimt of va-cancy created by the traasf^r. Thiis, even if it m, a.ccordmg to leamed coumel for the petitioBer^, is tccosimiodatiosi^ tliat, ca.smot. be a groimd for setting aside the tra.Bsfer order. 7. Iii view of the abeve, the petition is devoid of merit <^ad is accordingly dismissed. No or^€rasto coste. _,_-_--—' ~ 8d/- .. ..: SatishK.Ag"11'0*"