&^1 ^pfo^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR -i)!i>T) W.P. (St. No.^^ / 2006 Petitioner ^t-^/ ^^^ ^•L.^^ =^'\\^-" ^•••^\.A~ ^;.-' %:1 Respondents ^ ^0 \'^ .0° \^^ o^ Vedram Bhasker, ' S/o Shri Bhuvanlal Bhasker, Aged about 56 years, R/o Presently residing at Forest Compound, Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada (^ o^) Versus 1). State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, Forest Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur (C.G.) 3) The Chief Conservator of Forest, Administration/Gazetted, Raipur 4) The Divisional Forest Officer, Dantewada Forest Division, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 5) M.L.Yadav, Range Forest Officer, ^' Bijapur Raqge, Bijapur Forest Division, Dist. Dantewada (C.G.) WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .ft-p ^ [N THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No.4921/2006 Petitioner Respondents Versus- Vedrain Bhasker S'ta.te of Chhattisearh & ofliers Shri P. Diwakar, Senior Advocate wifh Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for fhe petitioaer. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govt. Advocate for fhe respondents No. 1 to4. None for fhe respondent No.5. \, OR D E R (8th September, 2006) Th.is order of the Court is passed by Justice Satisli K, Agniliotn. 1. The petitioner (Vedraia Bhasker) has filed fhis petition chaUengmg fhe order dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure P/5) whereby the transfer order dated 24.6.2006 has been caaceUed in com.pliao.ee of fhe order dated 5.7.2006 passed ia. W.P.No.3202/2006 (Munni Lal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers). 2. Shri Munni Lal Yadav ffled W.P.No. 3202/2006, chaUengmg fhe order dated 24.6.2006 whereby Sbri Munni Lal Yadav was transferred on fh.e post of Kasttiagar AdMkari, Bijapur aud at fhe place of fhe petitioncr i.e. Range Officer of Forest Range Office, Bijapur, fhe present petitioner (Vedram Bhaskar), who was impleade<l as respondeat No.5 was transferred. The grievance o^/fhe petitioner ia fhe said petition was fhat he was posted ^t6 a place where ao such post was existiag. This Court after hearing leamed counsel for bofh ttie parties passed fhe foUowing order:- "Lcamed counsel for fhe petitioner subniitted Uiat vide letter dated 27.6.2006 (Annexm-e P-12) the Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur has already uifonned fhe Under Secretary, Forest Department that there is no such post of Depot Officer aud fherefore, fhe posting of the petitioner inay be raodified. Since' the Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur himself has writtea letter to the Under Secretary pohitiag out tfaat there is no such post on which fhe petitioner has been transferred and it has been requested fhat the transfer order of fhe petitioner be aiodified, fhe petition of the petitioner is allowed aad the Under Secretaiy, Forcst Department is directed to pass appropriate onlers in pursuance ofthe letter dated 27.6.2006 written by fhe Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur. Wifh the direction aforesaid, ffae petition staads disposed of." In view of fhie above, fhe order dated 24.6.2006 has been caaceUed pursuant to fhe order dt. 5.7.2006 passed by this Court m W.P.No. 3202/2006. The present impugned order dated 4.8.2006 cannot be questioned, whereby fhe petitioner aad fhe respondent No.5 have been accoininodated and posted on respective places. The contention of the petitioner that the traasier order passed in adniitustrative exigency cannot be altered as ffaereafter the adaimistrative exigency caiinot be different tliat of the earU.er one. Learaed counsel reUed on a judgnient aiid order dated 14.8.2006 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4274/2006 (Haiish Paadey Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh 85 others). 3^ ) 6. In th.e case of Harish Paadey (supra), fhe facts were entirely different, where subsequent order dated 8.8.2006 was passed on the request of local ineinber of fhe Legislative Assenibly which was held as not in pubUc uiterest or ia adinirustrative exigencv as the sam.e was aiade at fhe behest offtie M.L.A. The adiniaistrative exigency is not for a particillar postiag but it depends upon various factors which have to be assessed aad considered by fhe Govenunent ia public interest. 7. The present mipugned order necessarily involve fhe adnurustrati.ve exiKency as fhe earlier order dated 24.6.2006 created a confusioa by appoiating two persons at one place without looktug iato the availability of posts. The present impugned order clarifying the confiision aiid conipUcation created by fh.e earlier order cannot be held as not passed iii public uiterest or ia adHunistrati.ve exigency. 8. It is weU settled pruiciple of law fhat transfer is aa iacident of 9. service and it is for fhe V'er to decide as to where a particular ofScer/eiaployee is to be posted ia fhe uiterest of adnunistration and pubUc. For fhe reasons aforem.entioned, fhis petition is disniissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satis judge Thakur