^i^l^T'^fe' ^H^iTI^T sii^e^ ,\., '75E[ ^TPTRT^/ ^ftTFT^/ <f®ldl<M^ NWdi WtjN? "Wi 200 ^n^T <q^ (^l^^r) t^iTW^ft^ 3??^i Sinale Bench; Hon'ble Mr W.P. rsi Petitioner (Petition U/A 226 of| Panna Ld 50 year Inspect^ Kanker (| Vs Resoondents 1. The Secn &.K.5 Present: Mr. Sunil Sahu, Adv. for the petition( Ms. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the 23.01.2009 Heard. This is second round of litigal petition bearing W.P. (s) No.6246/ Annexure P-2 dated 24.10.2008 whe from District Kanker to Oistrict Bija same was disposed of by this Court w W^^N'RT^'^f^ <1'^K '^^tRfH^T^I Justice Ohirendra Mishra) Mo.432/09 Constitution of India) Nag, S/o Shri Matadin Nag, Aged about ?. Occupation- Service, Posted as Sub r, at Police Station Narharpur, Distt. |State of Chhattisgarh, through the pary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Bhawan, Raipur (C6). 2. Direcjtor eeneral of Police, State of Chha-ttisgarh, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G). 3. Insp^ctor General of Police, Police Head Quar^-er Police Line Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) 4. Supeitintendent. of Police Kanker, bistt. Kank^r (C.(5.) r. State. |ion. Earlier the petitioner has filed [08 against his transfer order of 1'eby the petitioner was transferred |)ur on administrative ground and the |th a direction to the respondents to ^l^<^^^W^lt^<H-^k^M—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. •:iK"-^. '^ ^ ^ "T^ ">.ii<4idx4, ©THwc,t^ray ^i^r^r'f^t^ ^^ ^it^y ^i^i^ 'W^TiRtTO? "^ 200 ^n^r^ra^ ('^3^r) I^TW^^^i^i z-' decide the representation of the p^ period of six weeks. Accordingly, vide order of Annexure P-1 dated 2p been rejected. The petitioner has filed th|i representation on the ground that tt his representation have not be\ representation. I have heard learned counsel order of Annexure P-1. It is settled law that transf but also Q condition of service. No public undertaking has any legal righ] or place of his choice. The Cour1 exercise of discretionary jurisdicti Article 226 of the Constitution of either the order is mala fide or tl From perusal of order petitioner has now been posted at Inspectors are vacant in the said < ^R!wt41'i ^w^S ^ ft^<t <I^t^i< '^'^f^H^II^? -titioner against his transfer within a he representation has been decided ^.12.2008 and the representation has is petitionagainst rejection of his ic grounds raised by the petitioner in n addressed while rejecting the for the parties. I have perused the r is not only an incidence of service (povernment employee or officer of a to be posted at any particular place should ordinarily not interfere in n in the matters ofj-ransfer under India unless the Courts finds that lat the service rules prohibits such transfer, or that the authorities, w|io issued the transfer orders, were not competent to pass such orders. f Annexure P-1 by which the representation of the petitioner ha^ been rejected, it appears that the pijapur as numbers of posts of Sub (strict. The petitioner had impugned ?H^W ^^T^SS^ <M'1KIIM—FS/95—11/2008—1 ,00,000. ..-• .^: ^I^l'^i'^Tfe' ^i^lit^TiCTJ^ ^ ~5^r ^TPTM^ ^fta1T^, [®i<ni^^ NINfffWncti '^200 ^1^8 ^W .( ^i^®!^?); I^TW^^^IT ^ his tronsfer order in the earlier pe-j the ground that he has already s^ naxallite area, therefore, he ough'| district. However, the representa1| birector GenerQl of police by imp| transfer has been made on adminl menace in the District Bijapur and posts in the said district. In view of above, there app^ by this Court in exercise of the J Constitution of India in the impugnejd In the result, the petition h(| be dismissed and it is accordingly di| <^a<il.^4ti ^i^S ^ t^St <F^^8< ^ <iffiiH 3?I^T h'tion as also in the instant petition on |rved for more than 25 years in the to have been posted in some pther ion has been further rejected by the jgned order stating therein that his istrative ground to tackle the naxal to fill-in the large numbers of vacant ^ars to be no ground for interference urisdiction under Article 226 of the transfer order of the petitioner. is no substance, the same deserves to smissed. No order as to cost. ^ - .^^ v^^w ^iy^ ^^ ^U^ <M^i^(M—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. p