HIOH COURT OT CHHATTtSeARH AT BILASPOR WMT PETITIO ES».4856 of 3007 PETITlONER RESPOKDENTS Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. Francis Xavier Beek S/o latc Habfl Beck, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Indira Nscgaz ViBage Fundiudihan, Ambikapur, Sui^uja, District Suiyya (CG) Statc of Chhattisgarh, Tfarough: Secretary, Home, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipiir, District Raipur (CG) Director Oeneral of PoUce, Chhattfsgarh, Raipur, District Ralpur (CG) Inspector General of PoUce, eUiattisgarii, Raipur, District Ralpur (CG) Superintendent of PoUce, Suiguja, District Suiguja (CG) 5. Ashwiai Shrivastava, Sub-inspector (M), 10th Wahiiu, Chliattisgarh Anas Force Surguja, District Suiguja (CG) PRESBKT; Shri Manoj feranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri G.K. Beriwal, Dy. Advocate Gcneral, for tfae Stete/ rcspuudeuls No. 1 tu 4. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Advocate for ffae respondent No. 5. OR D B R (11-10-2007) DUreadra Mlshra. J By tfafe petition undcr Articlc 226 of fhc Coastitution of India, the petitioner has iiapi^ned fhe ordcr datcd l°t August, 2007 of Annexure P-6 whereby he has becn transferred fix>m fha office of Superintendent of FoUce, Sarguja to 10th BattaUon, Chhattisgarh Artned Porce Sai^uja and in his place, respondent No. 5 has been traasferred fi-om 10th BattaUon, Chliattisgarh Armed Force (for short "CAF^, Sarguja to fhe of&ce of Superintendent ofPolice, 8ai%uja. 2. The grounds tafeen by fhe petitioner ia the petition are that fhc oraer has been passed on account of political conside.i'ations without there being any adiniDlstrative ex^ency just to accoiiUBodate the respondent No. 5 ia his place. 3, The respondent No. 5 ia his retum tos submitted fhat fhe petttioner is posted at hls preseat place of posting since 1995. This fact has beeu suppressed by the petitfoner. He was initialfy appoiated as Assistant Sub Inspector (Mmisteaaal) m fhe year 199S a.ad.was posted in tfae ofB.cc of Supermtendent of PoBce, Saigula. He was temporarily promoted to the post of Stib Inspector (MiiustEiriaO and was posted at Jashpzu- vide order dated 26-12-3005 however, the petitioner did uot Join and coatinued to work as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministeria^ ui thc present place of p< ting and fha^after he was promoted to fhe postof Sub Inspector (Mmisteria^ in dtetxict Sai^uja itself vide order dated 1S-2-2007 of Annexure R-5/2. The petitioner has already beea relieved ihiin (he offiee of Superintendent of PoBce on 17-8-2007 vide AmiexurB R-5/3. The petitioner Uas suppressed aU fhese facts ia his writ petition and fherefore, fhe petition deserves to be dismjssed oa fhe ground of suppression of material facts. The respondent No. 5 had been representing wifh the authorities for his posting at Sai^uja as his wife is also a Govenuncnt servant and posted as Assistant Sub luspector in the ofEce of Superinteudent of PoUce, Saiyija. The Cominaadaat, l<yh Battalipn, CAF', Sarguja vide hls memo ofAnnexure R-5/10 dated 10-11-2006 addrcssed to Assistant Inspector Qenei-al of Police reconunended his transfcr to the office of Superintendent of Polrce, Sai^uja whereupon the Inspector General of Police vide his meino dated 6-2-2007 of Aruiexure R-5/11 forwarded fhe reconuneadatioa of fhc Commandant for necessaiy action to Assistant Inspector Geaeral of PoUce (Admmistration-1), Police Head Quarter, Raipur. 4. Learaed comisel for the pctitioner submits that fiwm perusal of the dociunent of Anuexure P-5, the letter written by Parliamentaiy Secretary, it is evident fhat order of Aaaexure P-6 has bcen passed due to poUtical consideration Just to acconunodffte the respondent No. 5. Referrmg to ffae documente annexed wifh fhe applicatkin dated 5-10-2007, leamed counsel for the petitioner ai^ued fhat wife of respoudeat No. 5 was transferred to 10th Battalton, CAK, Saiyija ater prQinotmg her, however she was not inclined to avail fhe promotron and thercfore, the transfer ofrespondent No. 5 in fhe place of petitioner is, in fact, made with a vlew to post the husbaad and wife at one place and the same has been passed to accominodate the respondent No. 5. Reliance is placed in ffae inatter ofB Varadha Rao -v- State of Karnataka and others1 and it is at^ued that where the AIR.19S6SC1955 -—^^^•— ,«fr^' transfer is niala&de aad fhe same is inade not for professed purpose such as in normal course or la pubUc or adiiunistE'atlve iatercst or iu the ex^encies of service but for other purpose fhau is to acconunodate another person for undisclosed reasons, then .iudicJHl uiterference is caUed for. 5. On the other haud, leamed counsel for the respondeEt No. 5 submitted fhat fhe petitioner is worktug in the present place of posting since 1995. He has beea transferred fioni thc ofifice of SuperintendeiLt of Police, Sarguja to 10th BattaUoa, CAK, Sai^uja. Bofh thc places of posting are situerted in two didferent offices at Ambikapur city and fhe drder has already been given effect to and fbe petitioner stands reliieved and the transfer is an incidcnt of service. The petitioncr has deliberately suppressed these facts in fais petition. The petitioner has no claiin to remam in his present place of postmg and the petition dcserves to be dlsmissed. 6. Learaed counsel for the State has also opposed the petitioa. 7. I have heard fhe leamed counsel for fhc parties. 8. Froin perusal of fhe pleadmg of the respective parties, it is evident that fhe petitioner was posted iu his present place of postfa^ siace 1995. He has been transferred from the office of Superinteadent of foldce, Sarguja to 10th Battalion, CAt1', Sai^uja and thus the petitioner has been. transferred by the respondents fioin one office to another office within the eily ofAmbikapur. It also teanspires tfaat he was promoted and transferred to Jaslipur ia the year 2 however he did not joiu at Jashpur after proinotioa and iiltimatefy he was asain pronioted and posted in his present place ofpostiag. . 9. It is setfled law that in. public service, transfer is an ineident of service aad aa implied condition of service and fhe appointmg authority has a wide discretion ia the matter aad fhey are thc best Judge to decide how to utiUze fhe scrvices of fheir eanployees. In ffae matter of B. Varadha Rao1 it has been held fhat the power of transfer inust be exereised honestly, bona &le and icasoasibly la pubUc iaterest and where the transfer te afifected on extraneous considerations or for achleving an alicn purposc or aa obUquc inotivc, it would amount to maiafkle and colourable exercise of powcr. t—- However, considermg the facts of present case and consldering that the petrdoner is posted in the present place ofposttagsmce 1^5 aiul even earlier when he was pronioted and teansfen-ed to Jashpyr, he continued to Femain ia the present place of p<»ting and also considering fhat the order of transfer of respondent No. 5 has been passed on the baavs ofvarious representations subinitted by him axid his wife in the past and on the recomincndataon of the Comaiandant of 10th BattaUon, CAK, Sax^uja, it cannot be said that tfac teansfer order of the petittoner is luala fide and fhe saiue has been effected with ulterior motive of acconunodating thc respondent No. 5. 10. In the result, there is no substance ia fhe petition, the sainc deserves to be dismissed and It is accordiagfy dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra ?/- .;i:..^-'ii:^;^ 'iss':i'fSs^S!^^S:''^ 'SslSS