^••ps4i£^ 3' Saj,i"y?S SS'- © NoN£^ /2011 Yunus Ahined Qureshi, aged about 51 years, S/o Naimuddin Qureshi, R/o Salihapara, posl and Tahsi! Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker ^/y^' ^z.-""^ ^'^'\.--' '<^ The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat Evam Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Coniinissioner Bastar Division, Bastar, Jagdalpur Collector, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker Chief Executive Officer, Janpad .!Sf~' -y^ %^"5i'.^ ^ ''^, "^s^; t'.- HiGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH : BJLASPUR WRiT FETiTiON'(Sl N0.4624 OF 2011 PET!TSONER YtimisAhmed Quresh' Versus The Sfate of Chhatiisgarh & Others RESpQNDtNTS (Writ Petition under Artlcle 226 S 227 of ths Constitution of Endia) Singie 3ench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Adyocate for the petitio.ier. ShriArun Sao, Government Advocate for the Stste. ORDER (ORM.l (Passed on this 16' dayof,a.ugust, 2011) 1. ChaSSenga m this peti^on is to the ordsr dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Coiiector, Disirict Uttar Basiar Kanter, whereby the pectioner worktng as Assistant DevelopmerA Extension Officer, hss been iransferred from Janpad Panchayat Bhanupratappur, to Janpad Panciiayat Koyaii&eda, on'administrative grounds. 2. Shri Kotecha, Searned counsei appearing for the petitioner submsts that Shs Goliector has no jurisdiction So pass the transfer order of the petitioner faecause he is not ths appoiniing au&iority or discipiinary aiithority of the petifioner. Shri Kotecha, furthsr submits the peiitioner is on medica) teave since 10.03.201 •! cn account orseverai disease and he is siiS! under the trsatment. The transfer order has bsen psssed by way of punlshment, which is impermissible under t'ne law and the same is iiiega!, arbitrary and unconstiiutional. 3. On perusai of the documenfs, it Is found that the impugned transfer order daied 15.07.2011, was passed by the CdtSector, transferring -.the petitioner from Janpad Panchayat Bhanupratappur to janpad Panchayai Koyalifceda within ths same district. The order was passed after approval o'ihe ministsr m-charae, as required under the iransrerpciicydated 13.06.2011. Thus; ihere is no infirmity.and 'T." :^...\ o. contention of the pstitloner that the Collector is not competent, is without any basis. Under the transfer poiicy, the Collector has been authorized to transfer Ciass-Sil and Class-iV empioyees within the district on proposai made by the concerned department on approvai by the minister in-charge. It is not ihe case of ths petitioner that no proposai has been made from the concerned departmsnt. !t is aiso not the case of the peiitioner that the petltioner is a panchayai employee of Janpad Panchayat Bhanuprafappur and, ss such, he cannot be transferred to another Janpad Panchav'at without consent, T'ne next contsnfson or iearned counsel for the peationer that the transfer order was passed during the period whsn ha was on ieave from 10.03.2011. There is nothina either uncer any executive instructions or notification or provisions of isw, whlch provides that no transfer order of an empioyes be passed when he is on teave. The other contention that the transfer order was passed by way of punis'nment is a!so not esfablished. Apart from this, there is no other admissible lega! ground such as ma!afi<^, iack of competence of the officer, v/ho has passed the transfer order and Vioiation of statutory ruies and reguiations. Be that as it mav. it 's a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of seroice. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order uniess there is maiice, infringement of statutory rutes and reguiatlons. in the case on hand, ihe petiiioner has faited to estabiish any of the aforestated grounds. The empioyee may be posted anywhere st the instance of the empioyer in pubite interest and aSministrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an emDiovee. Thus, the imDuaned order v/arrants no inierfersnce. J (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Hai (W.rs.} and others v. State of Bihar anotherv. S.S.Koury and others , Mohd. L'.P. & Others" Chief Commerdal Mane Secunderab-ad & Offisers v. G. Raina; Authoriiy of Inaia v. RajesvRatan andanothei^, Shilpi Bose anothei2, State of M.P. and i Masood Ahmad v. State of ager, Soutft Central Raiiway, sm & Others and Airports •&0ftsrae). 7. Applying the weil-settied principies of iaw to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in tne case. Accordingiy, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHOW Judge SShO'K