A ,/ v/‘W W“ S . B . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDEC‘g'URE AT BILAspug (5.6.) .Writ petition No, 43% /2oo3. jBhuwaneshwar Chandrakar S/o Amar Nath Chandr akar , aged about 36 years, PETETEGNER resident af Shiva Ghat, Sarkanda, Tehsil & Distt. BilaSpur (c.G.)' Versus ‘znx $tate of Chhatt isgarh Through : Secretary, PJ‘hD. "Mantralay, RESPONDENT w-gwy I).K.S. Bhavan Raipur (/C.G.) WRJLT PETZTTON UNDER ARTLICLE 226/227 OF CCNSTI‘I‘UTEON OF ENDEA : 7 Wmxmmuaww f ’ -— 5i N.K. Chafferjee. counse! r ‘rhe pefifianer. hr fqg Sri S.K. Agrwal‘ Depufy Ad he Sfafe / spondent By his pe+i1ion file under A les 226 227 o fhe Consfi'rn of India fh pef'ioner has challen +l1e order ded 30‘ pril 2003, nnexure—P/l, by which The pefifion 0 lgarh. The se o 1'he pail-loner is 1' he is wrking as Trace in Th Public No.1 since 28-5-1990 a one more employee on The sam posl' Mr. DP. aTriya is workin sinc -1-1983. During whole service The peTiTior's rr s unblemishe an good d during This erod ere was no lainT againsT The conducT o Th peTiTior, buT surprisingy The pe oner has bee ransferre by e rpondenT‘which is miliaTing and o essing. The peTiTioner's wie Meena cal disord since 199 a s is uner Th TreaenT of physician ly NiT Mallik aT Raipu and he peTiTioner has To always look ofTer and on accounT ofTe Transfer The eTiTioer will noT be able To look a his wife. The impned Trasfer order Annxre-P/l is arbiTrry, ala de, oppressive and prudicial To The D. K ng u inTeresT of The peTiTioner and Mr. P. shaTriya is worki aT Bilaspr since ' 1983, being prior in Time he s working 'Bilaspur Therefre he should have been Transferred, insTea of ThaT he TiTioner has bee ransferred whic ‘re Genral fake nofic on behalf of a e s e T d r 'c / f fuio e ir ged at “ A hs been fransfer'red from Bilaspur A e f Ro ca f h o r e Works Deparimen‘r a‘l' Bilaspur in Divi e h g e 13 ne caee i d d an pi Th co p f e ne l Ti i n Td Th es hu p r f i er 8 nd he d e Tm n e, in r T Chandrokar is uffering rom psycho s f l 272003 ‘ h v T re a n nd s h ‘ h pn f r ug n eu a m- i ej i o, d T e n T h ~ XI-HC-ZZ offends Ar‘ricle 14 of The Consfii in The nafure of mandamus the re 4 order Annexure-P/I, the same unoonsii‘l'ufiond and viola‘me of 1' I have heard fhe learned c During the course of or petitioner reiterated what has d submitted that the petitioner even that has not been considere working as tracer in the Public therefore, he has completed oro The ground token by the petitione is that one Mr. DP. ishatriya is working on the similar post since 1963 at B laspur has not been transferred, whereas orking at Bilaspur 7 years prior to the ‘ufion of India. Therefare, by way of wrif ipandenfs be directed no? to execute fhe being arbitrary, unjust, discriminafory, provisions of the Constitution of Indian nsei for the petitioner. guments, the iearned counsel for the ieen mentioned in the writ petition and a representation against his transfer . It is not disputed that the petitioner is rks Departmentat Bilaspur since 1990. d about 13 years of service at Biiaspur. rhe has been transferred, he is ' petitioner. , I do not find any substonc in this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no emp ee can have any grudge against the transfer policy and no employee a right to suggest that which employee is to be transferred. The transfer are made in the public interest and also looking to the suitability of the p ticular employee on a particular post in the interest of smooth function g of the Job to which the‘ particular employee has to perform in his of icial capacity, Therefore, the employee has no right to question the tra fer on the ground that in his place the e m o h XI-HC-22 when” employee should have been fransferred. 0f course he is enfifled 1'0 quesfion his fransfer' if the same ha en made on account of mah‘fide, bias or confmry 1’0 any policy laid down by he Government. A perusal of the petition show that the'petitioner has not been able to place on record that his transfer h been made on account of any bias or malofide of any of the officer: there ore, on this ground I do not find any force in the petition of the petitioner As far as the second ground ta en by the petitioner that his wife is a patient of psychological disorder and he is being treated at Raipur by Dr. Nitin Mallik and she does not want to leave the Bilaspur, therefore, on the humanitarian ground to allow th titioner to work peacefully it is necessary that he should remain at Bil spur only. In this submission also I do find any force because the wife of the/petitioner is being treated at R pur and that treatment can also be ‘ll Fr ~Gee taken from Raigarh because from Bilas ur to Raipur it takes about 2 % hougf y-l l and from Raigarh to Raipur will take 3 ours more. Moreover it has not been mentioned that with how much interval he petitioner’s wife is being taken to Raipur. The petitioner has served 13 ears at one place, and the disease of the petitioner‘s wife is such it will re ain during whole life that does not mean that the petitioner will remain uring his whole service at Bilaspur. This ground regarding the ailment o his wife it is for the concerned authorities if they think that the peti ioner can be adjusted then they can do so. But on this ground the Court ca ot interfere with his transfer. s e . e e W x1-HC-22 33 W, WWW,W Wm M....f..§....m 3 200 m 311%31 an - WWW wTm faaiaa‘ 311w WHFRI mmm ‘ la f §amm For- fhe reasons menfioned above, I do not find any force in fhis pefifion and The same is liable 1'0 be and is dismissed; me applscmians Na. LA. Consequently, {mm/JP. Na. 1717/2003, LA. Nos. 5691/2003 & 5692/2003} sfand disposed of. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO L Judge