^~iffESS3 HIOH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH, BILASPUR W.P.ISI No. 3683 of 2008 PBTITIOWER Bije Lal Tande, s/o Shri Kundan Singh Tande, aged about 48 years, Occupation Service - Posted as Sankiil Samanvyak, resident of VUlage DoUltara, Eost Maro, P.S. Maro, TahsU Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G) yersus RESPONDENTS 1 The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G) 3 The District Education Officer, Diirg, Distt. Durg (C.G) 4 Block Education Officer, Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G) WRIT PE?nTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IHDIA Appearance : Shri Bharat Rajpuf, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, Dy.Advocate General, for the State on advance copy. ORAL ORDBR (14.07.2008} SUHIL KUMAR SIHHA. J. Heard on admission. ~The petitioner Brije Lal Tande, who is working on the post of Upper Division Teacher, has been transferred fi-om Middle School Chakway, BIock fiawajgarh, Distt. Dui^, to soine other block iu tfae same District by aa order, which has to be issued by the District Education Officer, on adininistrative grounds. -^]L__ .l.:K&, 1 y^^"v!,-1 "!ss'y •S^^ -.F^': W.P.(S)No.3683/2008 Learaed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aa officer bearer of soine association and fhe father of fhe petitioner is patient of paralysis, fherefore, fhe transfer is bad iu ]aw. The Apex Court while dealmg with the matter of Kendrisia Wdsilttwa- Saiwathcm. -V- Dwnodar PrasadPwtAeai,JW04 AIS SCW SS63 referring to the various decisiosfs has observed vide Para 4 as foUows: Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by iiialafide or infraction of aoy prescribed nonas of priaciple goveming fhe traasfer (See AmAani Kdnta Kesi Vs. State ofOrrissaj. Unless ftie order of traasfer is vitiated toy inala fide or is inade ui violation of operative guideUnes, the Court canuot interfere with it. (See Unlon ofJndia 7s. S.I,. AbbeisS. Who should be traasferred and posted where is a inatter for fhe adinioistrative aufhorily to decide. Unless fhe order of traasfer is vitiated by laalafide or is made ia violation of operative aay guidelmes or rules ftie Coitrts should not ordinarily interfere wifh it. In Unlon. oflnsaia. & athers Vs. Jan.ardem. Detotiswth Ss another, it was observed as follows; "No Goverruuent servaut or employee of a public tuidertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of bis choice since traasfer of a particular einployee appointed to the class or category or transferable posts froin one plaee to aaofher is uot only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too iu pubUc interest and ef&ciency ia fhe public adinitusteation. Unless aa order of trausfer is shown to be an. outeoine of mala fide exercise or stated to be ia violatioa of statutory provisions prohibiting aay such traiisfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normaUy caaaot iuterfere wifh such ordera as a niatter of routLue, as fhough they were the appeUate aufhorities substituting fheir own decisfon for that ofthe eiaployee/inauageiaent, as ^aiust such orders passed in the iuterest of adminfatrative exigencies of the service concemed. This position was higUigbted by this Court ia National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan." In view ofthe above legal position, I aui not iuclmed to admit the petition for hearing. The petition deserves to be and is accorduigly disinissed at fhe inotion stage. W.P.(S)No.3683/2008 However, the petitioner shaU be at liberty to ffle a represenlation stating fhe grounds ofhis tafher's iBness etc., and the coaceraed authority shall be fiiee to dispose of fhe said representation filed by fhe petitioner on luerits, without beiag lyf^- influenced/the observations inade ia this order. With fhe above observation, ttus petition stands disposed of at fhe motion stage itsetf. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 1 ite BS!k