my m fairs: am W W Wm W 200 Wm (Wm WWW z DIVISION BEN5H: ' WWWHWWEW $oamw‘w HON'BLE MR. DHIRENDRA MISHRA & HON'BLEMR. R.N. CHANDRAKAR. J‘J Writ Appeal No.260/O9 the Division BenchLAct, 2006 §Wrif Agged under Section 2 (1! g_f C.G. High Courfs (Appe‘al f0 APPELLANT Usman ‘Aii, aged abouT 59 year's, S/o Peii’rioner‘ Musoam Ali, Pa’rwar‘i, P.C. No.3, R/o 6i H.O.-Gopalpur, Tahsil-Poli, Disfricf Korba (C 9) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. STaTe 31.8.2009 of Chha’r’risgar‘h, Through Secrei‘ary Depar’rmen‘r of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhavan. Raipur (CG) 2. Collecfor, Korbo, Disfricf Korba (C6). Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advg‘cafe for The appellant i order daTed 24.8.2009 passied ih WP. (s) No.4613/O9 whereby The learned‘ Single Judge hasg dismissed 1he wrii petiiion of The pefifioner filed agains‘r hisi‘rmnsfer" order of Annexure P—1 dafed 14.7.2009 passed by responden’r No.2. The appellant has impugned The above order on The ground Thaf fhe Transfer order has‘ been effecfed in the ban period offer M» l l l _ l l .a l Mr. K. Bhaduri, Addl. Advoca’re General for The S’ra’re. This pefifioner/appellonf's wrif oppeol’is direcl’ed against The . coordination with The Chief Secrefar-y as required under The Transfer policy of Annexur P—6. Ofher ground Taken by The appellan’r herein is fha’r The a pellanf is going To reTire on 31.5.2010 and Therefore, his Transfer a The fag end of his career is conTrary To The Transfer policy. Relyin upon The judgmenT of The M.P. High CourT in The maTTer of Aru Kumar ShrivasTava Vs. RegisTrar, High CourT of M.P. and oTh rs reporTed in 1992 J'LJ 244, iT was argued ThaT where The Tra sfer is unreasonable, arbiTr‘ary or capricious, The same would am unT To have been passed in bad faiTh or malafidely and a malafide aiTion is deemed To be non-esT in law as i .. an arbiTrary acTion would havel no nexus wiTh The objecT of exigency of service, which iT purporTs T serve. We have heard learned lcounsel for The parTies. We have also perused The impugned order. Learned Single Judge has diSmissed The wriT peTiTion wiTh an obServaTion ThaT policy of The GovernmenT in noT Transferring The employees, who are aT The verge of reTiremenT, has been made To faciIiTaTe such employees so T¥haT They may noT face any hurdle for The seTTlem‘enT of Their refiral dues. However, in The insTanT case /\~« i l l l li g [i mm r W' 290 swim (Wm am aqrém W men Hfga m g mania a;m aim n’ orgy: W amen 15* July, 2009 wiThouT con urrence of The Chief MinisTer in a’r a dismnce of 15 kms fro his presem‘ place of posting If has been furfher‘ obsar‘ved Thai. he pefi‘rioner‘ is serving in his preseni' place of posting since lasi’ mo e Than four years. IT has further been observed Tho? The Transfer policy is merely execufive instructions and no? any Rule of Law. l IT is seh‘led law fha Transfer is nof only on incidence of service bu? also a condifion f service. No Governmen'l Servam‘ or employee of a Public Underhlking has any legal righf f0 be posted at any particular place or pltlce ’of his choice. The Court should ordinarily not interfere in e ercise of discretionary jurisdiction of the State in the matters f transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the Court finds that either the order is malafide or that the service l'ules prohibit such transfer, or that the l authorities, who issued theEtransfer orders, were not competent authority to pass such orders. The Courts should ordinarily not interfere with the transfer order unless the transfer order is issued arbitrarily or malafidely or in violation of any operative guidelines or the rules gpverning the transfer. mm Vi 290 MW(W@) m. ‘Wi‘ia: am 3m1m WW1¥wm w1 aim 31m mm wea 31W In The insfan’r case, since the appeliam‘ has been +mnsferr‘ed within the same dis’rr‘ic’r by the CollecTor' ’ro a differen’r Pm‘war‘i Halka number af a disfance of 15 Kms, we are of fhe opinion That The learned Single Judge was jusiified in refusing To inierfere wi‘rh the transfer order of the appellant. Further, having regard to the above Settled principle of law, the action of the respondents cannot be termed to be unreasonable, a bitrary or capricious, which may lead to inference of bad faith and alafide. In the result, there is no substance in this writ appeal, the ame deServes to be dismssed and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. No orders as to co ts. \ , Dhl'rendra M, Judge X \ .«‘l 1 Sd/_ m l l l l Ishra 7 \K V , l y I i a s