.?- o 1 >•"••") ".'^^ll^ HI6H COURT OF CHHAmSeARH AT BILASPUR &IVISION BENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JA6&ISH BHALLA, Ag C.J. HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA, J. Writ Appeal No.OS of 2008 Appellant/ petitioner) Respondents Versus 1. 2. PK Sohu, son of Shri Chandrahas Sahu, aged about 48 yeeu's, working as Sub Divisional ©fficer,Sub Division - Rajnandgaon, Dept of Ir'rigotion ( Water Resources), Reynandgaon (CG) The State of ChhattiS9c»'hthrough the Secretary, Deptt of Water Resources, t)au Katyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C6) The Joint 5ecretcry, Department of Water Resources, Dau Katyan Sin9h Bhawan, Raipur (C6) The En9ineer in Chief, C)eptt of Water Resources, Office situated at Raipur (C6) The Chief Engmeer, Mdianadi Sodavari Basin, Water Resources Deptt, Raipur (C&) Writ Appeat under Section - 2 (1) of the Chhattisaarh Hiqh Court ( Appecl to Division Bench Act. 2006 Present : Shri NS Durandhar, counsel for the appellant. Shri AS Kachhawaha, Sovemment Advocate for the State. ORAL JU&6MENT (16th January, 2008) The followir»9 jud9ment of the Court was delivered by Honlale Jagdish Bhalla,Ag C.J. This appeol arises out of the Judgment dated 04.01.2008, wherein the transfer- order of the petitioner /appeliant was chollerged before the learned Single Jud9e. In the said petition, interim order was initially 9ranted and waB at the 3+090 of finol hearin9, it was prayed on behalf of the petitioner / appellant that he be allowed 15 dcys time to compty with Bt ^,;^»Ba .if.i^^ tf %a irf i'^-.f~y^1' sSS^" the order becauss of personal difficulty. We have been informed by learned Sovsrnment Advocats that earlier, petitioner / appellant was transferred and a99rieved by the same, he fi!ed a writ petition in which interim order was granted. Later on, the said writ petition was finally disposed of with the observation that in case still the State Sovernment thinks that the petitioner / appellant be transferred, let fredl order be passed. In li9ht of the above, petitioner' was aaain transferred from Rajnand9aon to Abhonpur, Oistdct Raipur. c?f In liaht of various judoments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, interference in the domain of the executive with respect to transfer can only be shown if there is any violation of law or a strong\cose of mala fide. Learned counsel for the appellant /petitioner failed to substtnttiate that either there is ony vioiation of lai»or a strong case of mala fide. We do not find any foundation of any of the alle9ations. In the case in hand learned counsel for the petitioner / appeilant ar9ued before the Hon'ble Single Judge that a) there is violation of 6overnment policy, b) though the ©overnwent were to transfer 15% of the employees, it transferred 22%, and the petitioner / appellant comes in the cate9ory of more than 15% of the employees. However", iearned counsel for the oppellant could not substantiate that the appellant was not omong 15% of the employees. Learned Sovernment Advocate informs that the poticy of transfsrvina 157o of the employees hss been withdrawn by an order dated 27.08.2007. This Court' being Court of records, the some is token on record. Further it has been contended that the petitioner / appellant has been trcinsferred after 11- years of his stcy. This point was argued althouah i9norirg the fact that liberty wsis grsnted by the Court in ttie earlier writ petition for the transfer of the petitioner / appetlant, thereby it means that the point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner/ appeltant in the earlier petition which was similar in nature, was not accepted by learned Sin9le Judae in the eartier writ petition No.4162/2006 and the appellant has not challen9ed the said jud9ment of the learned Sin9le Jud9e. Now, the petitioner / appellont hos been a9dn transferred in the !i9ht of the liberty 9ranted by the learned Sin9le Jud9e., therefore, the grounds which have already not been accepted by the leorned Single Judge, cannot be raised again. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ActingChiefJustice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge