h°) 10 HSGH COURT OR CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIV8SION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J.& HON'BLESHR!SUNSLKUMARSiNHA,J. WritADDealNo.173/2008 -itiRl*!4?fli/^5terP4t ^t. 'I^^HN ft'W 3"W? 1;Pf?T TRTR I^W ^i cTFWT 60 ^ toff an^ ste^t, Rdltl^ f^qRft .27 ^cft ^<?1l'h'll<< aSWCl q ter fte^ (^.'rT.) ^mwi^m^i ^ 1. y^1i!«^^RH ^RT A? ^T^s T?H ^?R cho^ll"! fN7T ^t.cp.^H.'qcR, Wiy (^.TT.) 2. ^f^RcW ^te, ^fT^? i^ qRc|K 4?<?^tU! f^TFT ^t.^.'^.^T, 'WI^ (^.7T.) Writ Appeal under Section 2 (11 of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (AppeaS to Divisson BenchyAct. 2006 Present : Shri VK Mishra.counsei for the appeliant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State. Judament (11th August, 2008). The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel forthe partiesare heard onadmission. 2) Appeliant Dr Nandkumar Mishra has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 4th August, 2008 passed in WP(S)N0.4199/2008. Theappellant had filed the writ petition chai'enging the order pf his transfer dated 8th June, 20Q8 (Annexure P/3) as District Ayurvedic Officer from Bilaspur to Raipur. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 26th July, ^- e: 2008 (Annexure P/6) whereby his representation against his transfer was rejected. 3) The learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalfof the appeltant did not find any case warranting interference in the matter of appellant's transfer from District Bilaspur to Raipur. The learned Singje Judge, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 4th Augusf, 2008 whereby the appellant's writ petition was disrhissed. 4) Shri VK Mishra, learned counsel for the appeilant vehementiy argued that the petitioner has been transferred in breach of the transfer policy framed by the State Government. 5) The Apex Court in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others Vs State of Bihar and others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 considering the scope of interference in the matter of transfer observed in Para 4 : "4. In ouropinion, the courts shouid not interfere with a transfeR order whicti is made in public jnterest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground ofmaia fide. A government servant holdlng a transferable post has no vested right to remain postedat one place or the other, he 1s liabie to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not vioiate any of his iegaf rights. Even if'a transfer order is passed in vipSation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinariiy should not interfere with the order instead affectedi party should approach the hjgher authoritjes in thedepartment. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the govemment and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which wouid not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in , interfering with the transfer orders." ,,^VMIUI 6) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; the reasonings given by iearned Single Judge in the impugned order; and the scope of interference spelt out by the Apex Court in the above quoted judgment inthe matter of Shilpi (supra), we are of the opinion that the impugned order dismissing the appetlant's writ petition agajnst his transfer does not suffer from any infirmity, what so ever. 7) The writ appeal, tHerefore, is llabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. | Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- | SunilKumar Sinha f" Judge 1 padma ^-.,