%8 ^ ^%?^1 c^c €?- ^ 11M61£.^^U ^^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.(S) N0,_,93'^ ^2009 PETITIONER /Y^^y ..•<\^f"'^^ ^^^' ^' ^••••" RESPONDBNTS Indraman Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri Shobha Ram Sahu, aged about 41 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Kathauli, Block- Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) VBRSUS ^ : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ' District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. AK ^) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIBGARH AT BILASPUR %dtiLetit»on.iS)..No..7371j9.f2p09 PBTETIONER : Indraman Kumar Sahu VERSUS .RiS?.ONDENTSi. : State of Chhattisgarh & another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hoffi ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shri Somkaiit Venna, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Paael Lawyer for the respondents. O RD E R (Oralt (Passed on this 17th day ofDecember, 2009) Heard. 1, The petitioner has filed this petition challenging flie order dated 3.10.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed on the represeutation ofthe petitloner. 2. Indisputable brief facts are that by order dated 30.6.2009 (Aiinexure P/2), tiie petitiouer, while workiag on the post of Upper Division Teacher at Middle School Kathouli, Block Kuind, Dista-ict Dhamtari was transferred to Block Dhaoitari at tiie option of Uie Distdct Education Officer, Dhaintari. 3, Beiag aggrieved by the faraasfer order dated 30.6.2009 tlie petitioner filed W.P.(S) No. 4182/2009, which was dismissed as withdrawn wifh liberty to fhe petitioner to file a representation. Accordiiigly, the petitioner filed a represeutation before fhe concemed authonty, which was considered and decided by order dated 3.10.2009 (Annexure P/1) and the prayer of the petitioner for caaceUation of the traasfer order has been rejected. ^' 4. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for tlie parties, perused fhe pleadiags aad docuraents appended thereto, 5. It is apparent fhat during the pendency of tlie wnt petition aad decision on the representation, flie petitioner has been at the present place i.e. Block Kurad for more thaa S^ monfhs, in. spite of tihie traasfer order dated 30.6.2009. The petitioner caanot claiin as a inatter of right to reinaia at one place forever. It appears tliat the concemed autliority has considered aU tbe aspects of fhe matter aad has decided fhe represeatation of tiie petitioner, io. accordaace wifh law. The transfer of fhe petitioner is with.iti tiie disti-ict froin one block to ofher block. Thus, fhe petitioner caanot be posted at a particular place. 6. It is weU-settled prmciple of law that traasfer is aa mcidence of seivice and it is for tiie eraployer to decide asto where a particulai' officer/employee be posted, keepuxg in view pubUc mterest as weU as admmistrative exigency. This Court has UBiited jurisdiction to iiiterfere wifh fhe transfer inatter, except in. the cases of proved XDLalafide/ non-conxpetence of aufhorily passing tlie traB-sfer order aad not beiag ia conformity wifh the rules aad regulations. The petitioner caiinot be permitted to reniaiti at oue place forever. Under tih.e provisions of sen^ice rules, eniployer has aU the powers to post an eiaployee at a pardcular place ia view of pubUc ititerest and adimnistrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nctdu and emofher1, Shitpi Bose (Mrs.) cuid others v. Steete ofBihw 8s 1 1974 (4) SCC 3 r .;..«-¥% ^r^,,^^ i 9^^^^ i.s /' L«. anothcr2, Union of Jndia cmd another v. Jeincirdhwt Debemcsth & an^ther3^ State of M.P. csnd anether v. S.S.K^un? an& others4 aad Mohd. Masood Ahnwd v. State efU.P.SsOthers5). 7. The Supreme Court ia Airports Authority of ladia v. Rajeev Rataa Paxadey & Otheys6, held that "In a matter oftrausfer ofa goveminent employee, scope ofjudicial review is luiiited and the High Court wonld not iiiterfere with aii order of traasfer lightly, be it at iateriia stage or final hearmg. This is so because the courts do not substitute fheir own decision in tlie inatter of traiisfer^ 8, There is uo chaUenge to fhe mipugned tt'aasfer order on any otlier permissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warrantmg iaterference wifh the nnpugned order. 9. For fhe reasons as afore-stated, flie petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. ___—-_— ——— — — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 (2004) 4 SCC 245 (1995) 3 SCC 270 (2007) 8 SCC 150 (2009) 8 SCC 337