inia BEK 00 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT^ILASPUR. WRITLPETITIONiS) No. ^s.^f OF 2006 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER ^f^ ^F-^V ff\.y ^v ^.^ -3>-' RESPONDENTS :: /'KIohammed Rafik, S/o. Sheikh Mohammed Umer, aged about 53 years, Upper Division Teacher, at Middle School, Pali, District Korba (C.G.), R/o. New Bus Stand Pali, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS 1} .State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Scheduled Tribes and Schedule Castes Development DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) y^ The Commissioner, Department of Scheduled Tribes and Schedule Castes Developraent, Chhattisgarh, H.Q. Pt. Ravishanker University Campus, Raipur (C.G.) 3) The Collector Tribal Development Department DistrictKorba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS, ORDER/ORDERS, DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS etc. ^^ HIGH^COUI?T OF CHHArriSGARHAT BILASPUR Writ Petition (s) No, 5356of2006 Petitioner Mohamined RaSk Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others Sin^e Beach: Hou'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. A@iihotri. Shri K.A. Ansan, Sr. Advocate with Shxi S,I. AU, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Suiaesh. Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for fhe lespoiidents/ State. O R DE R {91h October, 2006) The followmg order ofthe Courtwas passed by Satish K. Agaihotrl, J, 1. The petitioner was einployed as Upper Division Teacher in Boys Middle School, PaU, District Korba. By order datcd 6.7.2006 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner was transferred froiii Boys Middle School, Pali, District Korba to Balak Ashram Badgaon, District Korba by fhe respondent No. 3. 2. The State Goveminent. immediately 011 7.7.2006 (Annexure P/4) passed one more transfer order, whereby the petitioner was ti-ansferred froin Boys Middle Scbool, PaU, District Korba to Primary School Citakhol, Block Kartala, District Korba. 3. Beiug aggrieved, the petitioner had f3ed a writ petition, being W.P.(s) No. 4236 of 2006. This Court, after hearing bofh fhe parties, by order dated 14.8.2006 (Annexiire P/6), granted Uberty to fhe petitioaer without expressing any opinion on the nierit of the case, to make a detailed representation to tfae concenied authoritiea. The petition was disposed of accordingly. The transfer orders dated 6.7.2006 and 7.7.2006, in the ineantune, were stayed tiU fhe disposal ofthe representation ofthe petitioner. -^ 4. The Sccretary, Department of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Welfare Development, Goveminent of Chhattisgarh after affoidiag proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, rejected the representation, holding that by caistake in tiie transfer order dated 7.7.2006, fhe petitioner was shown as Assistant Teacher aad he was accordiugty tTaasfenied to the Piimaiy School. The Secretaiy clarified and modjjiied accordiagly and inaintauied the trausfer order dated 6.7.2006 passed by the respondent No. 3. 5. Beiag aggrieved, the petitioner has fyed fhe present writ petition. 6, Shri K.A. Ansari, leamed Senior Advocate with Shri S.I. Ali, leanied Advocate appearing for fhe petitioner subniits fhat there was coniplete non-appUcation of mind, as the name of fhe petitioner is Mohainined Rafilc aiid in the order the naine has been shown as Rafik Khan. Leanied counsel for f!ie petitioner does not dispute the fact of posti.ng of the petitioner, who is Mohamined Rafik, name ofwhose shown as Rafik Khan and his posting as Upper Division Teacher in Boys Middle School, Pali. Thus, fhe conteution of the petitioner is not tcnable aud identity of the petitioner is not doubtful, as the petitioner has appeared before the Secretary and has not pointed out deficiency to this effect in his application, before the Secretary. 7. With regard to other aUegations, tearued counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was arbitrary, unreasonable, inala fide, punitive and poUticalfy inotivated. Leamed counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to substentiate his arguments by plioducirig aay docuinent,, except his affidavit in support of the allegations (supra). Thus, the charges of arbiteariness, unreasonableness, mala fide, punitive and politicaBy motivated are uot established thus not proved. 8. The third contention of leamed counsel for the petitioner is fhat according to fhe petitioner, the Secretary, who has decided the 1'epresentation, informed the petitioner that there were certaia coinplaints against the petitioner aad as such fhe order is puiutive. 9. It is weH setfled that if fhere are soine coinplaints of simple nature, the einployee can be traasferTed in public interest without holding any enquuy and as such, it caanot be said that llie order is punitive, as the transfer of the petitioner is within fhe district froin one block to other block. 10. It is weU settled principle of law that transfer is an uicident of service and it is for the eiuployer to decide as to where a particular of&cer/eniployee be posted keeping in view pubUc uiterest as weU as adiunustrative exigency. This Court has Uinited jurisdiction to interfere ia the tiansfer uiatter and this Court can hlteriere only in the case of proved malaBde, non-coinpetence of authority passing fhe transfer oider and transfer order not beins ia coDformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/einployee cannot be penaitfed to reuiaui at one place, forever, by Court orders. At tttis stage, it is uot necessary to examine validily offhe transfer. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disniissed. No order as to costs. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge