sn^tw R;")!'* ^I St>*1 '3^ «l<l^ld'll, 8>Ttl'a<IS, f^CII'yy 1^!'^^ (1c;"3a"^er) ^iFgw^ 'siiqaf 4fs^ AtgK D.B. HON'BLESHRI DHIREND HON'BLE SHRIR.N. CHANDRAKA% JJ Writ Appesl Appellants (Petitioner) Respondents Versus 1 Tulsi Aged S/o Excis^ Sriri F{am Sahu, ibout 49 years, Shjri Ram Prasad Sahu, Constable, Class III, Office of Assist^int Excise Commissioner, Durg (CG) State ijif Chhattisgarh, Throu^h: Principal Secretary, Comrrjercial Tax (Excise), Govt. of Chhatlisgarh, Secretariat, DKS Bhawan, Raipui|(CG) ShriM Durg 24,8.2009; Shri VG Tamaskar, couns Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advo No. 1 &2. Heard. 2. The appellant's petition June, 2009, (Annexure P/1)whe of Assistant Commissioner, Exci \5—11/2008—1,00,000. ?A MISHRA, & No. 245 of 2009 Assist^int Excise Commissioner, Durg (CG) lap Mandavi Office (sf Assistant Excise Commissioner, ^ ?z- ^l for the appellant/petitioner. ;ate General for the State/respondents ^gainst hls transfer order dated 30 (eby he was transferred from the office ^e, Durg to the office of Distriet Excise :^ 1 fc ••if:^ •SS-" F"- . 'TST •^WMf, ®Tll<-l'IS,fslrtl'H'J.i V3, <ifT; sf^n '«BIft-ii* ^W^IR^T s»>*iicb iR<nwgftff ait?( ^^^T^R 'HWW iTstRmsn^t Officer, Dantewada on administr^tive order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexur^ ground, has been dismissed vide P/5) pasged in WP(s)No.3944/09. 3. The appellant has preferr^d while dismissing the writ petitioj Single Judge has not considej perspective: this writ appeal on the ground that \[ at the admission stage, the learned [ed the following grounds in its true (i) that the transfer ordei] was discriminatory as the same was passed with an intenticj place of the petitioner| exigency, (ii) that the transfer orde| petitioner on or before| made arrangements educational institution^ (iii) that a conclusion has| was not favoured, disrl petitioner on this counl Full Bench of Uttard delivered in the matt^ in to accommodate respondent No.3 in without there being any administrative r should have been served upon the [30th June, 2009 sothat he could have for admission of his children in at the proposed place of transfer; been arrived at that respondent No.3 ^garding the unrebutted affidavit ofthQ |. The principles of law laid down by the ikhand High Court in the judgment rs of Smt. Damyanti Bisht and etc. Vs. State of Uttaral^hand & Ors. , relied upon by the petitioner have not be^n considered. 1 ^iii^^rR^O^-tl^lN—.^95—11/2008—1,00,000. f ^l'< 1. ^ 311^1 W f<-( I^ (PitT ^fl^T St)*<|ct* 'S^ -fwm<i, a-nl'y'ie, fsKiiyy ^n^^l wiiw^ftgsn^i ? plaij»d Further reliance has been Sritanu Mukhopadhyay & Or^ Director of School Education, Thevan and anothef. onthe judgments in the mattersof Vs. UEJon of India & Ors. and y/ladras and others Vs. O. Karuppa 4. On the other hand, Shr General for the State, submitted appellant have been considered is settled law that the scope of limited as transfer is an exigei decision. It can be interfered wi1 the order is mala fide or that the that the authoritieswho issued such orders. 5. We have heard learned cc|unsel for the parties. 6. In the case of Smt. Uttarakhand High Court while administrative ground per se is person can be transferred on a| issuing the transfer order, the| arrived at and recorded his st confirmation, about the existen) VB.I.C. 2486 t)p(2)SCC666 ^1^i.^i^;T1i Vinay Harit, learned Dy. Advocate |hat all the arguments advanced by the |and repelled in the impugned order. It ijiterference in transfer matters is very ^cy of service and an administrative \t\ only when the Court finds that either [service rules prohibit such transfer, or tfie order, were not competent to pass pamyanti Bisht, the Full Bench of ufjholding the view that transfer order on i|iot bad in law, has further held that no administrative ground unless before authority competent to transfer has atisfaction, upon due verification and ;e and truthfulness of anyone of the ^.\ itl°hi?T^T?^mcg .s'lw—r», ts— 11/2008—1,00,000. ^ - -./' •»; /• 3]I^I ^ilftqh? WT sil^l aiiro '3'EET '^l'41<yi'4, 8>Tllyis, iqwiyy ?I11i^F (1 wnw^ftaaii*^ <y following three factors/grounds/c<)insiderations warranting, the transfer ofthe person concerned. (i) If there are serious compl^ transferred; or (ii) If the person sought to [} superior officers; or (iii) If the person sought to interest in the work. 7. In the matterof Sritanu M\ the Calcutta High Court held that the transfer order is not a mere foi principle of natural Justice. \ikhopadhya^, the Division Bench of ifientioning of administrative ground in fmality, and it is part and parcel of the 8. In O. Karuppa Thevan's ca^ rejecting the view taken by the Ti] ought to have been heard before t( respondent-employee that the traf mid-academic term, and observed that children of the employee are if the exigencies of the service are| that the appellant should not effej academic session. ^? aiRm 3?li?i nts against the person sought to be transferred has misbehaved with e transferred has not been taking ie3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while ibunal that the respondent-employee [•ansfer, accepted the argument of the hsfer order has been effected in the thatwhile effeeting transfer, the fact ^tudying should be given due weight, not urgent, and accordingly, directed ;t the transfer till end of the current ss . -,—. u/95—11/2008—1,00,000. ITlllWB, an^i 'vt K-V* ^8ff 3TT^T aiqiet) 'S'ST «l|l'41clzl, ®Tll'M<IS,[i(CTI<1'j,< V llf TODW^lfasiI^I 3" ^Rt?1^^ "RT^f "^ i^^f ^i^!^E< 9. In the instant case, the tr4 2009 and as such, it cannot 1} transfer. Jud^e 10. The learned Single judgments of the Hon'ble Suprem|i scope of interference in the ma| review in transfer matters under has been well settled by the hlon') judgments in this regard. It is se) part of service conditions of 4n interfered with ordinarily by a Cou|-t jurisdiction under Article 226 unle) is mala fide or that;theservice rit authorities who issued the ordet orders. It is not necessary for the| by adducing any reason before th< an 11. The learned Single Judgf matter of E.P. Royappa Vs State} has been held that the burden of who alleges it, observed that th< made allegation of malafide solel^ has been posted in place of the being pointedly asked about the 4 1974(4) SCC 3 nsfer order was issued on 30 June, e termed as mid-academic session referring to catena of binding Court, has extensively dealt with the fter oftransfer. The scope of judicial Article 226 of the Constitution of India )le Supreme Court through plethora of Itled law that an order of transfer is a employee, which should not be of law in exercise of its discretionary fes the Court finds that either the order ^les prohibit such transfer, or that the 1-s, were not competent to pass the jauthorities to justify the transfer order ^ Tribunals or the Courts. relying upon the judgments in the ofTamil Nadu & another wherein it istablishing malafide is on the person ^ petitioner, in the instant case, has ^ on the ground that respondent No.3 [etitioner on his request, however, on period of petitioner's posting in his s^ <M-li<t'IM—FS/95—1 1 /2008—1,00,000. 1 :^. I 1 ^.^s'^^ <tTT^?r »i^i<^ \^ "3%t "4l'I<l<?f'^,»Tf1y'IG, fs«v1l'H1< V 'vf^S (^yf^) ^im^fesiitw i present place, he did not answjer transfer of respondent No.3 on petitioner, does not give any n^ht present place of posting forever. 12. We are also in agreemen| Singte Judge, whereby decision High Court has been distinguishe|j, spectrum of administrative exig^ncy judgment, the finding recorded vf 5 June, 2008, whereby guidelin4s the school education department 13. On the basis of aforesaict infirmity in the impugned order There is no substance in this dismissed at the admission stage| No order as to costs. ^i*-lfcl*^"'l W^V^ ^ 1^^i iisifim to the query and therefore, mere his own"request at the place of the to the petitioner to remafn in his with the observations of the learned lof the Full Bench of the Uttarakhand I, and it has been held that the overall is much wider and in the cited ^as based on a communication dated were issued in relation to transfer in bfthe State of Uttarakhand. discussions, we find no iltegality or )assed by the tearned Single Judge. appeal, the same deserves to be itself and is, accordingly, dismissed. ^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge •Bre^T^*r^maarnanKm?—re/95—11 /2008—i,00,000.