^,^ T53 "'ll'illc)^, »Ti1*f'IS, («l<11'M'i< sn^r xnra? ^.^^.'^^ ^ •411CTI Shliqi fq^ST' Sfl^F^T h-fM sn^i ?h+f •(•ri^T 3D^i'^grm ^rfsa PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. Miss Bab: aged 35 ShaktiNs Versys Managia^ Through Beacon S' The Prinl Gevra Ko: The Prind The Iac4arge Head Master Beacon EngUsh School, Rlajgamar, Korba (CG) State o Secretarv Maatrala Writ Petition under Article 22 S.B. HON'BLE SHm 15-12-2008:- Shn Dhartaesh Sbrivastav^. Shri M.K. Beg, couiisel for + The petitioner is posted af EngUsh Medium. School, Shakti I|i was transferred by respondent Beacon EngHsh Medium School,| 2005 (Annexure-P/1). However, was again toransferred vide ordeit Medium School Rajgaiaar. chl'4l<vl41l ^^^ff^ f^c^ <P»l^t< i73lPgiT 311^1 [ta Neelain Dass, D/oShriR.K. Dass, rears, L.D.T. Beacon EngUsh School iar, Gevra, Distt. KorbafC.G.) CoiiLmittee, Beacon School, its Chau-man Managmg Coinmittee Aool Korba (CG) ;ipal Beacon SchoolShakti Nagar -ba (CG) ipal Beacon School SECL, Korba. C.G., Through The Principal, Education (School Education), a, D.K.S. Bhawau, Raipur (CG) >/227 oftlie Constitution oflndia) t)HIRENDRA MISHR&, J. counsel for fhe petitioner. •spondents No. 1 to 3. Lcwer Division Teacher in Beacon lagar, Gevra, Korba since 1995. She No. 1 from Shakti Nagar, Gevra to SECL, Korba vide order dated 29-4- pie order was not given effect to. She dated 8-10-2005 to Beacon EngUsh ;"'.,,;^^ ~~? '^'"^ l -HC-22 '!.. •-.-1. aiI^T^I h-u* 3nt?r ?ti<-f ^f^T 's^ '^WM^, STAwis, hwwy, 3TT^T 'VTSR Hnvff sbll<h '^PI. 200 fq^T' aii^i'Rgiw: ^if?cT o The petitioner has filed thi she has been transferrcd twice w order is actuated by inalice au( harass the petitioner. Learued coiinsel for fli respondents have referred vari< various oi^aaizations against conductiiig any enqiiiiy regardius has been transferred. Referrins P/4, it was argued fhat fbe coin] soine uiisocial eleinents who bav Utigation in the Sessions Court She would be iasecure at her tr^ her old and iufirm mioftier age<^ treatment in the hospital ia Gei transfer educ^tion of tfae studi affected. The respondents in their r^ becoine infiT-ictuous, as the petit) 10-2005. There were serious d difFerent quarters. Keeping ia vf necessaiy to transfer her 'and order of Annexure-P/1 dated appeared before the Maaaging Cji an assurance that she would bd <=M*fF(n<ft'T TfTR^f "^ fi^ '<pi(-^.i< ^ aifitpi.sn^i instaat petition ori the ground that "jthin a spaa of one year. Her traasfer fhe same has been passed just to petitioaer subinitted that the |)us coinplaints allegedly lodged by fhe petitioner, Iiovvever, wifhout veracity ofthe above coiaplaints, she to her representation of Annexure- ^lamts are as a result of conspiracy of also engaged the petitioner in. sonie pilaspur. She is aa unmarried lady. jiisferred place. She has to looJk after aboiit 50 years, who is undergoiaj ha area. As a result of inid session ^nts in fhe present school shaU be tum have stated that the petition has oaer has already beea relieved on 15- )inplaints agauist the petitioaer froin •w the coiuplaiuts, it was considered iccorduigty she was traasfen^d vide i-4-2005. The petitioner personally >Tnmittee aad adinitted her guUt with cautious in future. However, for fhe '^JBi ¥I-HC-22 ~--^.,^ T^ •<11<(1<']':1, Sfll^'Ko, (qCTI'Hy STT^T TR^ an^rw W SfW^I ^i+llc^ -M^CT ^NCT'N •qrorf^ fe^ ^RZR ^'3iPgH3Ti^r aforesaid reason her earUer traolsfer was canceUed. But when the coiaplaints coatinued to pour i(i, the respondents were forced to transfer the petitioner on admuiis^rative groiuid. have heard leamed couns^l for the parties. It is settled law that transf^r is not onlv an incidence of service but also a condition of service. N^> Goventment servant or employee of a PubMc Underteking or einploy^e of any oi^aiuzation has any legal right to be posted at aay partici4ar piace or place ofhis choice. The Court should ordiaarily not in|terfere in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of tlie State in fhe ni^tters of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitiition oflndia ualess the Court finds fhat eitb.cr the order is inalafide or fhat fhe service rule^ prohibit such transfer, or that the aufhorities, who issued fhe tr^insfer orders, were not coinpetent autiiority to pass such orders.) The Courts should ordiaarily not iaterfere with fhe transfer ordef unless the trausfer order is issiied arbitrarily or iiialafidely or in vi^lation of aay operative guidelines or tbe rulesgoveming the transfer. Takuig into consideration prese.nt place of posttag siace that the petitioner is posted ia her 1995 aad reasons assigned bv the respondents for her traasfer in |their retum and haviag regard. to the above setfled principle of law, I ^a. of the view fhat there appears to be no ground for iaterference by pus Court in exercise of jurisdiction linder Ardcle 226/227 of fhe C|;onstitution of India ia the impugned traasfer order of fhe petitioner. ^ccordiagly, the petition is distnissed. Sd/- / Dhirendra Mishra Judge •^13