@ mgg gEam- W.P. ,(S) No. Eg 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ' QHHATTISGARH) $6516) / Manoj Kumar Shah, S/o. Mahesh Prasad Shah, aged about 42 working as Range Forest . years, Officer, Raip‘ur (cs) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS: " Shrl S. A. Khan, Forest ’Ranger, North Manpur Range, Rajnandgaon Forest Division, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Surendra Singh Thakur, worldng as Depot Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari Forest Division, Dhamtan' (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R; .N VERSUS State. of Chhattisgarh through its Department; V D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Secretary, Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur (C.G.) / Divisional Forest Officer, Forest I Raipur (C.G.) / . (5) / Shri The Petitioner named above most respectfully submitted as under: ‘— @ the. impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the correct factual position with regard to posting of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that within 'a short period of Iess than six months. now the petitioner has been transferred from one piace to another place. lt is also submitted that in fact order dated 14-05-2010 is an order of modification, which is clearly reheated from memo dated 11-02-2010 (Annexure R-1 ). lt is then submitted that posting of the petitioner from Mainpur (Udanti Century) to r Dhamtari and postin of respondent No.4 from Manpur to Bilaigarh is based on politicai iniiuence, which is clearly reveaied from memo dated 04~O2-2010 (Annexure P-8), by which, pressure was exerted on the Conservator of Forest to post respondent No.4 at Bilaigarh. (4) On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that while the petitioner was posted at Mainpur (Udanti Century), he himself made a request for transfer on the ground that he fears threat of life. A proposal for transfer was moved, and in the meantime, as an interim arrangement, the petitioner was allowed to continue at Bilaigarh by the order of the Conservator of Forest and the order of transfer came to be passed by the competent authority only subsequently on 14-05-2010. Learned State counsel replying to the argument of political inliuence, submitted that directions given by the Minister of the concerned department, for which, he is competent, could not by itself amount to political influence and no other material has been placed on record by the Iearned counsel for the petitioner in order to subshntiate the arguments of political influence. It is also submitted that suitability of an ofticer and his posting at a particular place, is a matter for consideration of the transferring authority and the petitioner could not claim posting of his choice. In so far as availability of vacancy at Dhamtari is concerned, the memo dated 08- 06-2010 (Annexure A-1) has been placed on record by the respondent No.4 along with an application for haking document on record which shows that now petitioner's posting is proposed to be changed from Dhamtari to Saraipali; (5) petitioner had made a request for his transfer from Mainpur (Udanti Century) which is clearly retiected from order dated 11-12-2009 (Annexure P-3). A perusal of this order would show that the matter was referred to the Chief Conservator of Forest for transfer of the petitioner and taking into consideration the plight of the petitioner. an interim arrangement was made by posting the petitioner at Bilaigarh Range.'While the petitioner was continuing at Bilaigarh under such an interim arrangement. though a proposal for petitioner‘s posting at Bilaigarh was made by the Principal Conservator of Forest and sent the same to the State Govemment, but the State Government had already directed the Principal Conservator of Forest to pass appropriate orders regarding transfer of respondent No.4 as Ranger at Bilaigarh. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the government directed the Conservator of Forest to post respondent No.4 at Bilaigarh, in view of the note sheets of the Minister of the concerned department. therefore. it is a case of politil influence, deserves rejection. Merely because the controlling Minister of the department has written note sheets proposing transfer of an ofticer from one place to other place, in the absence of any other cogent material available on record, could not by itself lead to conclusion of political influence. In the capacity as Minister, if the Minister writes a note sheet, it cannot be said that it was a case of political influence. At one point of time, the Principal Conservator of Forest recommended for posting of the petitioner at Biiaigarh, when there was already a directionby the State Government to pass the order of posting of respondent No.4 at Bilaigarh. lt is for the government to consider and decide who is to be posted at which place. It is not the job of the Court to decide which employee From the material available on record, it is quite apparent that the would be suitable for posting at a particular place. Once the govemment has mken >a’ decision to post the respondent No.4 at Bilaigarh vide impugned transfer order. which was vacant, the same cannot be faulted with. Submission of Iearned counsel for the petitioner that Bilaigarh post was not vacant but occupied by the petitioner, deserves to be rejected. because petitioner was placed at Bilaigarh by thelorder of the Conservator of Forest as an interim arrangement and the competent authority by that time, had not passed any .order of petitioner's transfer and posting at Bilaigarh. The argument that the impugned order is moditication of executed order is also not acceptable. The impugned order does not show that it is a modification. In plain and simple terms, it is a fresh order of transfer. Reference to intomal correspondence is immaterial. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been transferred to a place where there is no vacancy. deserves consideration. It is an admitted position that now the place where the petitioner has been posted under the impugned order. one S. S. Thakur has been posted and has joined also. Vide order dated 08-06-2010 (Annexure A-1), a proposal has been made to transfer the petitioner from Dhamtari to Saraipali. However, no order of such moditication has been placed on record. (6) in view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of transfer and the petition is accordingly dismissed. Howaver, the petitioner shall be given an appropriate posting at a vacant place as per proposal dated 08-06-2010. No orders as to cost. / g TumlM / J i E 5 Sd/ SbYI‘VaS‘ava Man'mdra Mohan Judge