v />-' t^ IH IHE HIGH GOURT OF JUDICA'TORB AT BIL^SPUR (C.S.) WRIT PETITION I'iB.^f/e Of 2004 8'ETWEBN Dra S.Jahlruddin ( Ghlef Execufeive Offtser) s/o Late Shri Hazl Rahlnniadln,' agred about 46 years, Saa^aS Panohgyat Darbha (now aj?fcacl>ed with Office of Golleetor, Basfear, Jagdalpar) PETITIGNBR Dlstrlct B^fejS?T Jagdalpur (GG) ^x^v .^y^ ^y^^ ^"^y »' w~4 ^ .•• A N D '^'.&0'A\/-<-' ^6"'!^,*'--' The Sfcate of Chhattisgarh, ^^y ^ ^ Welfare ]3epartmen1s ( n-lbal Welfare Development Dep-bt ) ^ Through -the Principle S8®re-bary,SC,ST,OBG sr»a Minorifey Welfare ]3epartmen1s ( 'I'E'lbal Welfare Development Manfcralay, D.K.S. Buildlng, Ralpur (CG) . 2. GonaBiss lonev, 'Eribal Bevelopmente, Office at Universi-fcy Gampus, Ralpur (GG). 3. ttig^pollectoi-; •let: Bastai? a'te Jagdalpur' (CG) . ^^^' RESPOBBENTS' «»'f" .l'SPETITION ONDER AR-EICLES 226/227 0F THB^ CONSTITUTION OF lb__ INDIA XI-HC-2!i . gaga ::";% •:;" .ss®i;;;sgB52BS8»anBsasKsai !aBsBasaeaaaBa$8igta ws^^fES- ?'!S"B81$JISI!UIBBBB8JiS83sSfiBli^NiBS{^B ^.iiftill^^^BUBl^Bllte^'5:''.-^:-S3^t®!8 ^jl^'it^ll^ll W^y^iisStS^'-i-Biet 311^ ftT Tsfnw sw^l <,h*li<f) Tti^(; ^ ^•HtiaKbWhi 5n^i'?(<iiw;Hfet for •riie petitioner. Advocate Seneral, for the 16-09-2004. Shri Rakesh Anthony,coun^el Shri V.V.S. Murthy, t^y. Stnte/respondents. The application (I.A.No.^729/2004) for urgent hecnng is aliowed. Heard. By this petition under Arti( Indta, the petitioner has challen^ed impugned order dated 30.01.20(p4 (A Collector, District- Bastar at 3/Collector attached the petiti4ner's Chief Executive Officer, Jonpad the Collector, DistricT-BasTar. The case-of the petitioner on the post of Veterinary Assisl origina! department is Veterin^iry petitioner was working in the Tritjai Development Officer/Chief Execuiti' the petitioner, the State fiovemi^ent ^T^^I^^ "^ is^ <F<it$i< ^i'arfSgfsi^i fcles 226/227 of the Constitution of •the legality and validity of the (Annexure P/l), passed by the fagdalpur whereby respondent No. services from ths office of Ponchoyat, tiharba to the offics of is that the petitioner was cypointed [ant Surgeon on 20-05-1981 and his &epartment. Thereafter, •the ii tSepartment on the post of Block five Officer. Looking to the work of 1-, Tribal bepartment/respondent [Tft^ ^tRsi^ j«.fc.»M!.t.. ! \')V Rra, a^ly'te, 'torey ^s' ..lA?.:..i.;..'?o.'?.'...L.$^io|\sfi^ 311^?! ^il teN'sn^i sKt<Twren:^CT r4 ll2- i.1 decided to take the servicels on deputation and, Therefore, 12-02-2002 asked the Veterinar^ the deputation of the petitioner. of the bepeu-tment of Veterin^ry (Annexure-P/3) informed the Department has no objection in on deputation for the post o\ Thereafter, vide order dated 3-i of the petitioner were taken on posted him as C.E.O., Janpad compliance of the said order th< post of C.E.O., Jonpdd Thereafter, respondent No.3/Co (Annexure-P/1) removed the Jcnpod Panchayat, ^arbha, in the office of tiie Collector, D| Education Officer to take Oistrlict the additiona ife Counsel for the p^l Collector/respondent No.3 has Annexure-P/1. He further submi+ted nt> ^piferiN •tniRif •? ft(z> iS ^arfigiisn^i of the petitioner in its department r4spondent No.l yide its tetter dated vsrjf &epai't!nent for no objection about |In reply to the said letfer, the Head vide its letter dated 1-3-2002 r4spondent No.l that the Veterinary |t-aking The services of The petitioner C.E.O. in the Janpad Panchayct. •1)2-2002 (Annexure-P/4), the services deputation by respondent No.l and r, Darbha, tlistrict Bastar. In petitioner joined his duties on the Par^chayat, barbha, bistrict Bastar. |lector by its order dated 30-1-2004 p^titioner from the post of C.E.O., Bastar ond attached his services Istrict Bastar <md directed the Block churgeof the post of C.E.O. titioner submitted that the power to pass •rfie impu9ned order that only the State ©overnment ["qt^ ^Ra<) XKHC-22 sn^i^i feTi^sn^r WRN'^f?'! .?%.*'tt!''iK;t<i, •»Ti1<a'ila,i'ifii'My. itfflOTwm?;' (j^.P ro6,'2-S^.\o|'LO°4 200 W<lifl'>il-) IWCif 4 fvS <iqt^l<. ^TSTf^n Sllta has power to pass such order a^ the petitioner was posted as Chief Executive Officer on deputation) Counsel for The petitioner referred to Annexur-e-P/5, issued by the^ Senerat Administnttion &apartment and submitted that the State 6dvt. has issued some direetions in this regard. In Annexure-P/5 it is m4ntioned -that during inspection of -the Depari-ments by the Chief Secr^tary it has come to the knowledge that in soine departments paij'licularly Public Health and Famity Welfare, Education and S.C./S.^'. Welfare and Minority E>epartnien1; doctors and teachers were at^ached froni their original place of posting to some other departme^its. As a result of which, concerned departments are not 9etting the proper asrv'fcss, where, in fasct, such employees are posted. Sudi typ^ of action is vitiated by maiafides on the part of the authori+y. C^unsei further submitted +hat the petitioner is also a doctor and ^he instructions issued by the State Soyt, in Annexure-P/5 are oppli|a»ble in The case of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner placecj reliance on the order passed by this Court- in W.P. No.1511/2004 (D.l^ & others). Counsel for the petit^ . Singh V. Chief Executive Officer ioner also placed reliance on decisions reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Opwrt Cases 416 in the matter of t)r. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi V. Union) of India-& Others and A.I.R.1993 [ift^'^3^ i, wciWia, /^ (jj.f.l^o. 2^^otze»4 sn^r^T IN^an^i wnN'gSCT Secre1|ary •tb exist Office dalfc of power - order of Transfer Senerul ckiiming Delegation must tronsfer order - order delegating existin9 on •the order - Instead issuing a fresh o^ continuation of tH appetlant to join posting - t-lstd, fir^ subordinate au-t+iorjty at that Time, wc|s consequently the ae^< could not stond". In simitar matter i-e. &. 9iven thoughtful consideration Chief Executive Officer, Jila C.E.O, is not empowered to v ^qfepfri 'CRtf^t 4 feIA '{S q? SlPTO 3tI^T Supreme Court 2444 in the m^ittet" of Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas. In the case of &r. ftamesh Chandra Tyagi (Supra) the Hon'ble iex CourT has held Thus; juthorit/ to order - Delegation Competent Authorily but appeltant issued by Direetor be detego-ted oulhority - on the date of passin9 of notings revealing that no Ipower To DirecTor Seneral fe of issuonce of -the tronsfer |>f cainceltin9 that order and 1-der, second order issued in earlier one directing the one \i-t the transferred place of ^t transfer order, issued by a having no delegated power invalid and non est and jcond order, founded on it, also [. S\ngh (Supra) this CourT having set aside the order pcsssed by the Ij'cnchayat; Bilaspur holding that the tc|ke such type of action against the ['^tf^ XI-HC-22 i???SBT WRWCT5? .u-^ '.'.' ^<^.^ .^;..P.?J"..2.^ioLlpo4 i»il<)i<-i<fl-1•qT'TCS 4 f%^t •<Fi|^l< employee ond the State Sovemm^nt is 1+ie competent authority to poss such orders. In -the circumstane&s, State/respondents i®ryfairly subjnitted the State Soyernment which is further in the mcrt-ter. Hcving heard counsel for totalit/ of the circumstances, this da-ted 30/01/2004 (Annexure|-P/i) No-3/Coilector, Bastar at Jagdalpi law. Accordingly, the order passed by respondent No.3/Colle^stor, aside. hfowever, the State 6oy|ernment authority nwy inquire and take acti|?n Wi-th the aforesaid Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.225^ Certifisd copy as per rules. counsel tippearing for that liberty moy be giyen To competent outhority to proceed th® parties and considered the Court is of the view that 1he order 4r is not sustainable in the eyes of ^lated 30/01/2004 (Annexure-P/1) ', Bastar at Jagdalpur is set I", which is the competent in the matter in accordcmce with observa^-ions, this petition slunds disposed 2004 also stands disposed of. Sd/- Fakhruddin <-' [•^^3^