^ Q) SWSLE BBtCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCS^ARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} W. P. (S) No.^^?5 of 2011 PETmONER Chandrakishore Sahu, aged about 49 years, S/o Shn' bhandhu Ram Sahu, working as Multipurpose Health Worker, Community Health Centre, boundilohara, bistrict-Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 2. -^ .^^y^ ^sy3- y ^ €% •o^ VERSUS '.lf State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Health <& Family Welfare Department, b.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.6.). The Under Secretary, bepartment of HeaJth <& Family Welfare, b.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (.C.G.) Chief Medical & Helath Officer, Durg, District-burg (C.G.) 4. ^ Block Medical Officer, Doundilohara, District-burg (C.G.) 5. ^" Udit Hardel, Multipurpose Health Worker, Sub-Health Centre Bhavreli, Community Health Centre, Bamhanidih, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETCTION UNbER ARTCCLE 226 OF TJjE CONSTITUTtON OF INDIA ^. '\ %: H?GH COIJRT OF CHHATTTSOARH AT BITASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (8) No. 5383 of2011 Sahii. .RE.SPONDENT.S VERSIJS State ofChhattisgarh & CXhe.rs. WKSI PE1THON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE. CONS'nTLTION OF LNDIA SB: 'Hon'Ue Shri Satish K. Agnsiiotri,.?. Present: Shri Ratnesh K'umar Agrawal, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri S.K.Mislira, Panel Lawyer for the Slaie/'respo.ndail No. I lo 4. O R D R R (Passed on 12tt day ofSeptember, 2011) 1. Challenee in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Amiexiire IV1) passed by the Chi^f Medica! &. Heattfa Oflieer, Durg, whereby the petitioiien workmg a.s Miiltipiirpose Health Worker (Maie), at Co.mmiimfy Health C^ntre, Dondilohara, ha.s traiisferred to Svb Healtfa Ceixtre, Jevra. tlie C'omm'imitv Healtti Centre, Nawa.garh= The petitiosier liirther swks to challeBge the c^rder dated 27,08/2011 (Amiexure P/l) whereby tlie petitioner has been transferred from his presCTt place of posting i^. Dondiloliara, to Commimity Health C@Dt.re, Saja, 011 a.dmmistrative groimds, 2» Shri Agrawal, leamed coimsel appearmg fix the petitioiier siibmits imder the tra.mfer policy da-ted 13,06.20.11, it m clearly stated tliat the Collect.or alone is competenl. to tra-Bsfer the employees belongiiig to class III aad class IV ser^ices, 011 proposal ma.de by the depa-rtmesits in approval ofthe mmist.CT-m-charge. IB the ca.se on faa-nd, it appea.rs thatthe ChiefMedical & Health Officer, Durg, withoirt followi.ng the giiiidelm^s issixed iii the transfer po.licy, has ,-^c •y /^ ^ .,,:A|^^-^ ^ Qggr"jj <^ -^;. passed tlie impiigiied order 15.07:2011 (Armexure P/11 when t3ie Collect-or has been a^signed the .responsibility of of lli.e employee workiiig m the concemed dist-rict, on propo.sal of the concemed departmesits, Thus, this suffers "from the defect, of of, tfae officer. Accordmgty, the traasfer is imsiistamable m the eyes of law, M respect of ordw dated 27.08.2011 (Aimexitre P/2), Shri Agrawal next submite that withoirt casiceling the order dated 15.07,2011 (Aim^xiire P/l), the order dated 27.08.2011 (.Araaexiire P/2) has been passed bv the State Govemment wbich is yiijust, and improper, It is fiirther siibmitted that the wife of the petitioaer m post-ed at Doridilohara. as MiiltipHrpose Mealth Worker. Thii^ as per tiie poiicy ofthe State Govemment the petitioner a.Bd his wife mxsst be posted at a nearby pla.ee, 3. Lea.med coimsel appearmg for other fairiy tfae order dated 1-5.07J011 (Aiinexire P/l) has been passed by an mcom.pet.ent. offieer^ However, so fa-r as the order da-ted 27.08.20]. 1 (Amiexiire P/2) is concemed, the same has been passed by the State Govemmeiit, and there is 110 illegality or infirmily. As far as contention ofth-e petitioner wilA rega-rd to posting oftte hiisbaad and wife a.t one pla.ee m concemed, ifthe petitioEer, aloiigwith his wife makes ajomt representation raismg their grievaace.s, the same sha.1! be considered and decided m a.ccorda.nce with law on its owii ments. 4. In view ofthe afoove, the order da-ted 15,07.2011 (Amiexiire P/l) m respect ofthe petitioBer^ is quasfaed as the has been pa-ssed by aa mcompeteist officer. So fa.r as tfa^ order dated 27.08.2011 6. (Amiexiire P/2) is coiicemeA the pet.itioner has. not poitited oirt a-ny illegaiity or mfirmity. It is also well-settled. that is aa mcidence of service it is for the employer to d^cid@ aMo where a particular offieer/employee be post.ed, keepmg in view piiblic as well a.s a.dmim<?trative exigeacy. TUs Coiirt has limited jimsdictioii to mterfere with the traixsfer matt.er except. m the cases of proved maM fide., noii-competence of authority passing the traasfer order and not being m conformity with the mles aisd regiilatiom. The petitioner/employee caBiiot be penxiitted t.o at oiie pla.ce forever. Under the provisioBS ofservice niles, employer has all the powers to post a.xi employee at a part.icvlar place m vievv of piiblic mterest. a.sid a.dmimst.rative exigenoy. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadii and another , Union af Indla ancf, " v. Janard'han Debanath & another^, af'M.P, and another v. S.S.Kaiirw andother/ and MoM. MasoodAhmad v. State qfU.P, & Others4). In view of ib^ abo'w, tlie petttion is devoid of merit and is accordmgly dismissed, Axmt Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1(1874)4SCC3 2(20Q4)4SCC245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007)88cc 150