c r, vO^ <4g' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATISGARHAT BILASPUR WP Nes^.°^05 .(. i l'- PETITIONER: / RESPONDENTS: SURAJSINGHMANDAVI S/0 BHAGWAN^SINGH AGE&ABOUT42YEARS R/0 0HONDI LQHARA (P.O. & TAH) DIST:DURG, C.G.STATE. ' VERSUS DTHESTATEOFC.G, THRU: SEGRETARY, AJ- EDUCATIQNbEPTT., ^y^y ©0^-ORO.G. ' \P/^)lf / DKS BMAVAN, ^.^"^ RAipUR.'""" k,l \0<X!?/ ., MS/ 4^f/ ^•',^^/ '•t,' . •;^' •ES A? "'^y "^ RAIPUR. y2) THE DISTCOLLECTOR DURG, C.G.ST^TE. ^3). DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DURG DICT C.G.STWTE. WRCTPETrTIG)NyNDERARTIG^E226^^©IEME](S©^^aJEIQN^^^ IN01A FOR ISSU^CE OF ARPR013RIAW@;SVll!i".»®;l/l DIRECTlO (S),EtC. S)S WiB ^.f XI-HC-78 *11Hdi|^TfT^ v}-DqTO|qirtO,U>Tn'9<|<»,Rl«l<(-ly< .[ti.K'.^P....'(.'h?..k, 3iT^?T(igqi(^cit.j[6|<g) ^ZOOa sn'^ag'TR-ii'b cCT3II^T(b*fi<b g^ft<R^rtlffsa^si 27.10.2005 Shri U.R. Koshatey, Shri Vivek Sharma, P.L. I.A.N0.9Q70/2Q05 This is an gpplication for hear'ing. This'interim appli W.P.NO.S206/2005 Heard. The petitioner, who is in Block Education Office, transferred to Arkar on validity of his transfer order Learned counsel submilt the mid session ahd it is goin| studying in a iocnl institution not pressed for any other groi^ The law in relation to irl- transfer is now well settledl mdtter of Kendrikyg Vtdya S coun^el for the petitioner. (appears for the State on adyance copy. ! • , "' . . fjir' urgent hearing. The matter- is token up i^ation stands dispossdof. 2004 AIR SCW 9563\\e\d ^ service is not to be interfsreld tPi<<(oi<I1il!*fnl"iflss3tfu|'t-ci'< 4?3I^»T3ntST (^resently pos+ed ois an Assistant (Srade-ItI t^hondi Lohara, &istt. t5urg and has been ac|Tiinistrative grounds, h<is challenged the )la1ed 31.8:2005. thait the transfer has been effected in h to affect the studies bf his child who is Except this ground, learned counsel has ^nd while arguing this petition. |terference by the Courts in the matter of The Apex Court while dealing with the wngathgn -Vs- Damodg^ Pi'ysadLPandey^ hat the transfer which is an incidence of with^ by the Courts unless it is showh to XI-HC-78 AdisqrOKllwq t»Tflfl<l<»,Rrtl'(-iy'< Hi*irti ?ew 3Tf^?Tira^ ('i^fg^) W^200 sn^CTwR'fi* awaii^STtbHitb gfeff<R^(l%?i3n^ai 'z- 'PKifrid'''f'twT^ 1®1<3'''"'W ^3I^I3n$9T be clearly arbitrary or vitii prescribed norms of princip|es Ambani Kanta Ray -(<?- Sta^ ^ed b^ mata-fide or infraction of any |es goveming the tronsfer. {Please see fe of Orissa - IffffS (Suppl.) 4 SCC 16^. maitle The Apex Gourt further he vitiated by mala fide or is Court cannot interfere with i^ /4J/? 1993 SC2444). Who matter for'the admini^trativel transfer is vitiated by mcla fi guidelines or rules the Courts Unjon of India & others -Vs- |d tfiat unless the order of transfer is in violation of operative guidelines. the 1-. (See Unfpn of Indla -Vs- S.L. Abbas sh^ould be transferr'ed and postedwhere is a authority to decide. Unless the order of i^e or is made in violation of operative ciny should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Janardan Debanath & another (2004) 4 SCC 245, it was observed by •tfie 5upreme Court as foilows; No Qoveri pyblic undertdkir^g fprever at any oj choice since appointed to the posts from one incident, but a cf in public interej administratibn. shown to be an stated to be in| prohibiting any Tribunals normcjl orders as a mattfci iment servont or employee of a has any legal right to beposted \ie particular place or ploce of hjs tr^nsfer of a particular employee lclass or category of transferoble place to another js not only an indition of service, necessary too it and efficiency in the public Unless an order of transfer is >utcome of mala-fide exercise or violation of statutory provisions ^uch trainsfer,the Courts or the lly cannot inter'fsre with such srof routine, as though they weire 1 [|T :^rHl)WnHTP"rF'H:;^i^?i^^«'^^^^ s^isssws^ XI-HC-78 ia<jw|-yiyiri'y,wa1ti*Ks,Ri«ray^ H1101 ^TT^ p.p' f30 • S" 2-0b an^STiraq? (yiigq.g) s 3II^?TTTR'li<h =rargii^?isOTra? <b|4{ri'!S1-1*11*1riT^'ls'cl •(luitsi'! ^'aif^ffsll^^T - the appellate decision for tha1f against such administrative e>j This position National Hydroel ai^thorities substituting their pwn of the emplbyee/moinagement, as o^der passed in the interest of igencies of the service concer'ned. w<|is hightighted by this Court in ilectrjc Power Corpn. Ltd. -Vs- Shri Bhaawan (2b01) 8 SCC 574. Since the counsei for tHe ground of malafide or the gro framed for governing the tran^ aforesaid impugned transfer There is no merit in the So far as the points personai difficulties are conce^ the employer to look into the employer is dlways obliged to employee with a view to keep may render an excellent servic^ Hgn.ce the petitione^ representation raising all his g and if such a representation dispose of the same in accordou| petitioner could not pointout either any ind of being violation of any stutor-y rules ifer, I am not inclined to interfere in the otder.. ^tfrit petition and the same is dismissed. raised by the pefitioner regarding his se^-ned, in the opinion of this Court it is for jiersonai difficulties of the employee. The look into the personat grievancesof his Ihim/her in such a condition that he/she to theemployer. shall be at liberty to file a detailed •ievctnces before the competent fliuthority is filed, the competent authority shall kcewith law. ___- Sd/- SunilKumarSinha _ Judge jifii'HtiTtniTiiirtnrr'Trrtr'T"^