!Mfi¥8| ^€-Vr^- IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (GHHATTISGARH) W.P. fS) No. \^5} /2010 PETITIONER ....•<^.^ ^..r1-"^'.t/:'-i-" ^^^:^^--" ^^io^-""' ^^ss^u" ^^3^-- RESPONDENTS: Itwaru Ram Sahu, S/o. Late Basru Ram Sahu, aged about 53 years, working as Sub Inspector, P.S.—Kota, O.P. - Belgahna, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS (1) State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.t t^' ssvs 6"^ ^(2) Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Distt, Raipur (C.G.) ^[3] Chairman Police Establishment Board, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) ^(4) Superintendent of Police, Office of S.P. Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The Petitioner named above most respectfully submitted as under: - '^v' -1. PARTICULAR OF THE PETITIONERS As shown in the cause title. 2. PARTICULAR OF THE RESPONDENT As shown in the cause title. m(%CC ]^ CHHM^Sf3ARH^TB&A^UK^^^^ ^RCT^ETinQN^^ ^.iTSlQf^ PETmONEIt : ItwaruKamSalni. VERSUS- " ' : .:, .\'''' :'." • RESPQNDENTS : Stats QfChhattis^ifa & Others. •WiEUTISTmCNUNDERAjEfrieije SBsHim'MeShriSatiaiCAenUiutti,.). Eresent: ShnN^.Koy.ActvpcatetelIffi^ ShriAIV.Shriiffi^PajMtLswyw:^ .' ;":':^ '"ORDiER;flMiAlA,. • ::., •..::''::':: • i : ~ " :-:.'':'. ..:;';^(Passed^^|^'^y>^'201®:•:- ^::":!'', I. By tias petitK^ ^ peti^<^-^ ^ dated 07.tl.2009 (Amiexui^%l^at^^(B^dated31;03^010^(Anne^^ t^ Belgalmia, DiSttict-Kilas^ admimstratiw gxmnds.:J^p^^ responderite to e<^ider^Dd decide his?TepreseHtati<a d^ '(4nnexureP/3).'- ;1. ;.' .•:.:'.,'1 .•.•- j,.: :1^: :';.1';.^ .^ ~. ;.• ' 2. ^The facts, m mitsl^, are.ttiat ^^p^ CcuBtabIecm Q1.IO.1976 aridpostsd^Sistrie^ vrork^till^year 1982. Th^affl^ t^ post cf ad?C<mstaUe a^ wcaked Ifaere on the sameric^»»e s'"fill 08.Q4;19^. TliB^p^ttKniCT lwas agam tn-Muot^ totK po^o^^sisto^ DistrictBg^yur^ThepetiStmCT'was'I^ <m accduiit ofMs exenmlary Iwav^ ^ t»stedat<jidam,Distnct^ntew^^ tia-eat due to his exefflpl^ t»w^sfaown in •(fae field, ,(he petitMaier •made a Tepreseatatton to tte^ c(msideredlusTepissCT[tati<»and'tiew^^ Disttict Rajpur<m Ol^8.1!9^^^a^ Belgahna,OistrictBilaspiu- 25^8^200&Howe^va»^U -^^wsew pTlCT^OTF^WWU^^VD^J^FW^ra'GPS^aSS^^S 6. order dated 0'7.11.2009 (Aimexure iVI)," the petitimier has been agaiti iranrf^edtoDisrictKank«T,wliichis-aisoaNaxaliteafFectedarea; Learned counsel appearing for 1he petitioner suteuts fhat smce the petitioner has served in ttie Naxalite affeeted weas fbr about 18 veais, he has again beeh transfeiTedto Naxalife afiected area, and fiirtter1tle is a tilreat to the life ofllie petitiaier by one Naxalite aamely BKimaBna,, tiie mipu^ied transfOTls tod Fuither, the respca^^ not decided his repre8eHtati<mtilIdate.ThepetiM<aerisa^dab<Hrt53", yesss and is also a}patient ofHypertension and Diabetes. 'Ilius, he msy . not be fit for peT&nmng his duties in the Naxalite afifected areas. The acti<M ofthe respQndeHliurthoritisg islllegal, matofide and arbittary. Per (^mtra, Shri SIiridhat feamed Pand Lavww appearing^ fe Ihe StateAwpoBdents sutamts Aat fhe tTansfer has< been made'pirety on adnunistTatwe grotuid as 32 blha'SUb Inq)ectws have been teaasfaTed by the impugasd order and that too, to theNaxaliteaifeeted areas only^ , Heard leariied counsel appearing for the patties, perused Ihe pleadmgs - and doeimaants appeiided therato. It is well^settled tiiat transfer is an inddeaCe ofservice aiKl it is far the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public mterest as well as admiaistrativ®exigency. This ,; CourthaslmMtedjurisdictiontoiatCTferevritfithelransfCTmatto in the cases ofproved malafide, non-eompeteia?e ofauthority passiag the transfer order and not being in confdnmty with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee oannot be pemritted to remain at one plac®fbrevet Under the provisions of Sfirvlce rules, employer has allthepbwerstopostanemployeeataparticularplacemviewofpublic mterest and admnnstTative exieenoy. (See EJ'Jioyappav. State ofTamil Nadu anrfanoft^;£?ro^^J»^aontfa^f^v.Ja?Mr^a^ & anotke^, State cfMJ'.andcmofhery.SSXGWKwar^other/aaii MoM.MasoodAhmadv. State<^'UJ>.&Other/). • ' '1OT»(4)SCC3 v-'SW4^VWXi ' 1(1995;? sefnB ' (2007) 8SCC 150 w 7. The Supreme Court, m 4»3K ^^w^^A^^^^^W /3a>2^ <& Qffier^ h^ tiiat"In amatto eniployee, seope ofjudicial review is Ihhited andte Hi^l Gowtwould not interfere with an order of'fransfer liyitly, be it at utterim stage or final hearmg. This is so because the eouris do not substitute their own decision in thematteroftransfer". 8. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugiMd OTder QB any pemrissible legal gminds as aferestafed, wailaatingmtea-feren^. 9. Forfhe reasoHS as afiMestated, the petition is (lisnrissed atfhe motioa stage itsetf. However, so far as fhe gHe'vance of fhe petitioher wifli re^rd to non CQrisideratiou of his rqH-esentation dated 18.11.SOO& (Annexure R3), is concerned, it^ is e^eoted fhat 1fae respont&ifc a.trtlKMities shaU look into ^ matter ande^^ represeatatioriasexpeditiQuslyaspossBble. Sd;- ^^s' AoW 'ftrua