@ U’ 1% J ‘ Single Bunch l IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 I I w.P.(S) No3?—..‘.j.t..of‘z201 1 / § Biren'ldra Kujur, S / o Silbeutqus Kujur, Aged about 51 yErs, ‘R/o Opposite to Dash;mesh School, Patparia, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chha‘ttisgarh. Versus PETITIONER 1. /State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, School Education RESPONDENTS / 3. DiStrict Education Officer, District— Surguj a, Chhattisgarh. 4. ’/ Block Education Officer, Ambikapur, District— Surguja, Chhattisgarh. V, 5. Ms. Geeta Singh, D/o Ramkhayal Singh, Aged about 42 yrs., R/o Village and Post~ Sanawal, Tahsil Pal, ‘Distt~ Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 6. ”‘Shri Ramesh Singh S/o Ramkhayal Singh, Aged about 46 yrs., R/o Village and Post— Sanawal, Tahsil Pal, Distt— Surguja, Chhattisgarh. r17“ y? WRIT, PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ \ x; Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2T” Collector, District— Surguja, VChhattisgarh. ’ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETiTiON (S) NO. 32’}? O‘F 2011 Birendra Kugur Versus , State of Chhaffisgarh & Others (Writ Petition Lmder Ai‘tmie 22$ of the Cons itution 9f india) 7 Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri 8atish K. gnihotri, J. Shri Sameer Kiijur, Advocéte for the peéiticner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt; Advocate for the State. GRDER (@RAL) i PETlTlONER RESPCNDENT$ Present :- 1 i {Passed on this 23rd ‘day ef June. 2a“) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submiis that the impugned order dateci 1-5.0?2010 (Annexure P—i), whei'eby, th petitioner was transferred form Middie ‘Schooi, ‘Sargawa, Block Ambikapur, to Middie School Taparkeia, Biock Ambikapur. The petitioner was engaged in the eiestion duty. There is a clear prohibition of transfer of an employee, if helshe is engaged in the election dut. y Thus, the erder deserves to be quashed, as being iliegal. The‘second contention of the betitiorier is that this is a male fide exercise of power‘ as the respendent No.6 happens to be a Persona l Assistant to a political leader and in order to accommodate the resppnoient No.5, who is the sister of respondent No.6, this order has been passed, as is evident from theatte‘ndance Register (Annexure Pu5)t 3. ‘Be that‘as it may, the male tide cannot be established on mere \ guesswork and conjectures. it requires strict proof and the same has t be proved with cogent reasons. if an empioyee happens to be relative of Pfersonai Assistant of apoliticat leader, who is not named here. that is not sufficient to establish male fide, as by the impugned order, not only the petitioner was transferred but ntne more persons were I e \ o w yiF ransferred. Thus, it appears to bg purely a Vansfe; on administrative } t eXigency. It is evident that having regard i0 the fact that'the empioyeelpetitioner was engaged in th’e election, the'impugned order was kept under suépens‘icn and he was relieved only on ‘ll42011 (Annexure P-4). Thus','it cannot beheld that the transfer o der was given effect to during election duty, which is prohibited in normal course. The other contention with regard te fake educatienal certifieate and domicile certificate is not the subject matter of the transfer petition. Thus, it is not neceseary to go into the genuineness of other certificate, which is not relevant for transfer of an employee. 6. Thus, l do not find anylmeritin this case. Aooordingly, the writ petitio is liable to b and is hereloy dismissed at the motion stage itself. e . Sd/— tish K.Agnihotri r n a x