EN @‘HE HmH acym‘ 3F €HHAT?§$&&EH M aImsPUR wax? gJEEHaN m. 4r4§37 SF aoa5 ? ff? 00" v? ?.—. 3.2.33: /i‘:.5. Thakur, son of Lam Hagm Qczm Thakur, aged abom“ 44 year‘g, prewmw - wanking as Chief Execsg‘rivg Gfficer, Jangad Pamchaya‘f Arcmg, Disfrricf Qaipur (66.) m 5mm 0f Chhm‘i‘mgark, fhmugh ‘fhe‘ Secre’mr’y, Deparfmem 0f Panchaya? & Rum! Devaiapmen’r, D.K.S. Ehawan, Rmpur'. .5hr‘i Ashgk Chamrvgdi, presemHy workmg as Pmshikshak Vishesag, preSgnTly workmg as Chief Execmivg Qfffcer’ Jammd Panchaya? Navgggrh, Disfr'icf Champa—Jan‘jgir‘. ONER A. CE. (“Emmm Garibi Unmuian Pariyojm, Raiplgr. h.) .wIW mQKmMuMM.C%MQK Qm HXvHmW. X i -HC-78 1mm mtn‘m 131 WP4JF33 .......... .. E200 5 anaalW (W3) mmm anésr WW#WW §7W msT 16.9. 2005 Petitioner by Dr. N. K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shri Sunjl Meshra. Adv ate. Respondent No. 1 Heard. _ In the present pet dated 5.9.2005 (Annexu: the petitioner, have rbreen transferred to various places.» Learned counsel for the has been subjected to years i.e. 5.4.2003 to 5. times. The petitioner w Janpad Panchayat, Ab dated 5.4.2003 he wa Jaijaipur, District— Ja dated 5.7.2003 he wa Bemetera, District-D 29.7.2004 he was trans i.e. Janpad Panchayat, y Shri Bhaskar Pyasi. Panel lawyer. tion the pet'm'oner impugns the oxder e P/4) whereby 16 persons, including pen'tioner submits that the petitioner quent transfer as within a period of 2 .2005, he has been transferred four s Working as Chief Executive Ofhcer, anpur, District Raipur, vide order transferred to Janpad Panchayat Champa, from where, vide order transferred to Janpad Panchayat, , and from where, vide order dated erred to the present place of posting Arang. Vide impugned order dated f n u XI-HC-78 m§qi$ WF41T$3 ...... .... 912005 0?. {3‘1 mam Rafa“) mmmanéet r ?. ’_ 5.9?2005 he has been ttansfan‘cd mm Arang to Janpad . Panchayat, Dondiloham, Disuict- Durg. Lealned counsel for the petitioner contends mat this amounts to malaiide oxemise of powers by the reopondents. In support of his contentioil learned counsel relies upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of B. Baradha a0 Vs. State of Karnataka 8n others, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1955, herein the observations made in the case of E. P. Royappa s. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555vwexe considere and quoted as under:- “5. ....“...Frequen transfers, without sujj‘icient reasons ' to justify such t ers} cannot but be held as mala]?de. A transfer is mala de when it is made not for professed purpose, such inlnormal course or in public or administrative int rest or in the exigencies ofseruice but for other purpose n is to accommodate another person for undisclosed re ons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good ' actions should be In the above. cit case the ‘frequent transfer’ is not e interpreted, The ‘freque t transfer’ depends on the facts and circumstances of a ular case. A transfer which is made p c snéem‘lmw amméam WW§WW &iW mar r f a XI~HC-78 masm'a; '- -\ 33 WP+AF$2 W200!) anewm (was?) Wmmmsr __’Q,—. after a gap of one or. masonabls period of six as frequent transfers. I] the mt and second tran the present transfer is the earlier transfer oxdt the scope of ‘frequent 1 malande. It appeals th at the impugned transfer order has r been passed due to the administrative exigency, as the petitioner alone has I persons have been trans the need of service. In View of the fon :going the petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ,Satish K. Agnihetri .I‘ ' Judge WW#WW $Wmé31 two months frequently, Within a months or eight months may be held 1 the present case, it is noticed that .sfer orders were made frequently, but made after a gap of 13 months from :r, therefore, it does not come under ransfer’ and to hold this transfer as .ot been transfened, but 15 more iferred in administrative interest or in Isa]: