HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BIL^SPUR (C.&.) Writ Petition No. 2477 of PETITIONER: <•, RESPONbENTS: K.C. PAIKARA, A9ed 42 years, S/o Shri T.R. Paikara, Zonai Manager, Agro-Climatic Zone, Bilospur (C.®.) Versus - State of Chhattisgarh, Throuqh; TTie Pr'incipal Secretary/ Agriculture Production Conimissioner to the Sovernment of Chhattisgarh, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.@.) The Director of Agricu'ture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.6.) POST FOR OR&ER ON 17th SEPTEMBER, 2003 Sd/- l-C.BhadoQ t'— HISH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.6.1 Writ Petition No.2477 of 2003 PETTTEONER; RESPONDENTS; ®; K..C. PA1K.ARA, Ag&d 42 years, S/o ShriT.R. Paikara, Zonal Manager, Agro-Climatic Zone, Bilaspur(C.e.) Versus - 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throuqh; The Prineipal 5ecretary/ Agriculture Production Commissioner to the ©overnment of Chhattisgar'h, A9ficulture Department, Mantt-aloiya, Raipur (C.6.) 2. The Director of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.6.) y- Present: - Mr.R. Doyal, Advocate; For the petitioner Mr. Ranbir Singh, Sovt. Advocate: For the State/respondents Bafore: Hon'ble Shrj Justics L.C. Bhadoo OR DER (Passed on /•)/<. September, 2003) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India omd challenged the order dated 07.08.2003 by which The petitioner has been transferred from the post of Zongl Manager. ^griculture-Climatic Zone, Bilaspur, to the Directorate of Agriculture, Roipur, against the post of Additional Director, Agriculture, vide Annexure P-1. 2. The petitioner's petition is that the petitioner wos posted and working as Deputy Director of Agriculture, Dhamtari. On promotion as Joint tSirector of A9riculture/he was posted as Zonal Mana9er, Agro-Climatic Zone, Bilaspur, yide order dated 13 AAay, 2003 (Annexure P-2) and in pursuance of that order, the petitioner joined his dutieson 04.06.2003 at Bilaspur. p; AAanohar 5ai Karketta who was working as Deputy Director of Agricullure, Ambikapur, has now been promoted to the post of Joint bireetor of Agriculture and has been posted at petitioner's place vide order dated 07.08.2003 (Annexure P-3) without ony order in relation to the petitioner, but by a separate order (Annexure P-1) the petitioner hqs been trdnsferred as Additional Director, Agriculture and posted in Directorote of Agricuiture, Raipur. This order hos been revised by order doted 11.08.2003 stating that the petitioner is being posted against the post of Additional Director, Agriculture in the Directorate of Agriculture, Raipur. TTils Transfer hcis been made only to oblige/adjust/accommodate AAanohar Sai Karketta at Bilaspur within a short intervai when the petitioner has joined here on 04.06.2003 during the academic session when he has settled his family and 'children at Bilaspur. No post of Joint Director is vacant at Raipur, even then the petitioner has been transferred againsT the post of Additional Director JusT to accommodate Manohar Sai Karketta. This transfer is not on the ground of administrative exigency. Manohar Sai Karketta could have been easily adjusted at Bilaspur against the post on which the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order. The petitioner has already incurred a good amount for admission/luition fees, books, uniforms etc. for his children at bhamtari during this academic session. On his transfer/postin9 at Bilaspur, he has again incurred the amount for the same purposes. Now, having again been tnmsferr'ed at Raipur, he will be again required to incur huge expenditure for the same purposes. Therefore, operation of the transfer order be stayed having been not acted upon since no handing dver/takinn ovsr has bsen done so far. 3. Return has been filed on behalf of the State/resp&ndents in which it has been mentioned that for the purposes of smooth functioning of the Soyernment ad-hoc promotions haye been made in the agricu!ture department and as a result of new promotions, officers are also requirsd to be posted according to their status. The petitioner is a senior officer of the Agriculture Department and for the smooth functioning of The ©overnmenT, o at times, !t becomes necessary to tronsfer the senior officer from one place to another place. It is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency as eontdned in circular dated 01.01.2002. The petitioner has not been put to ony disadyantageous position. The promoted officer is also to be accommodated to suitable post. The transfer of the petitioner is not out of any mala-fide or contrary to the rules. AAoreover, the transfer has been made on administrative exi9ency. Therefore, the writ petition be dismissed. 4. Ihave heard the leamed counsel for •tiie parties. 5. The iearned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no post lying wcant at Raipur and the petitioner has been transferred against the post of Addi+ional birector. Moreover, the petitioner had joined at Bilaspur, on his transfer from bhamtari to Bilaspur, in the month of June only and within a period of two moriths the petitioner has agcin been tronsferred to Raipur, whereas, the person (Manohar Sai Korketta) who has been posted at the place of the petitioner could have been eaisily adjusted at Raipur. The learned counsel furthsr submits that since the children of the petitioner have been actmi+ted in the school at Bilaspur, the petitioner may be allowed to continue till the next session i.e. up to April, 2004, csnd thereafter, if the petitioner is transferred then the petitioner has no objection. 6. On the other hand, the learned 6ovt. Advocate for the State/ respondents submitted that the petitioner's transfer has been made on administratiye exigency and on account of certoin promotions, •rtie Tronsfer hos been made to adjust all the officers for smooth functioning of the Department. Thersfore, there is no substance in ths petition. 7. The petitioner has not mentioned onywhere that his transfer has been made on account of any mald-fide or the same is contrary to ahy statutory rules, where as the reply on behalf of the State/respondents is 1+iat the transfer has been made on administrative exigency. The pstiTioner's case. \s that he has been transferred only to cccommodate Manohar Sai // ,^- :uma Karketta. As far as the question of petitioner's transfer ogainst the post of Additional birector is concsrned, if the post of the Additional birector is lying vacant then tnmsfer of a junior officer against that post i.e. Joint Director con be made. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any irre9uiarity or iliegality based on any circular/rulesondregulations, by which a junior officer cannot be posted against tiie senior post. As far as the question of inconvenience and hardship caused to the petitioner, which has been pointed out in the petition is concerned, the transfer is an incident of service. Unless the transfer is against the statutory rules or on the ground of mala-fide, the transfer cannot be subjected to judicial review. But the petitioner has not made out a ceise for judicial review of the impugned transfer order. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties dnd having perused th®pieadings of the parties, the petitioner is allowed to make a detailed representation mentioning all his grievonce to the respondents within a period of ten days from today and the respondents shall consider his representation in on objective manner within thirty doys from the date of receipt of the r'epr'esentation cnd pass on cppropr-iate order. If it is possible, then the respondents con adjust him suitably. 9. The petition is disposed of with adsove observations.^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^^^' J< «'