G—78 311^1 ^il ft'TOi' '?T8TT 3TT^?T gFTTTqp ':.- HWWl tbHI^ ;T=T-i<l<11<YI<<, aitil'H'16, fqdiyy —^.£:."2.^.;..<0'17Z63_ _ "WI. 200 sn^l TT?^? (yit^'t1!) ?%IIW(lf^T OT^I PBTTTIOKBR Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. Smt. M<tena Ramteke, W/o Shri Bhqicndra Ramteket aged about 44 years, R/o near Middle School paiukanha, viUage Lamkaaha Tahsil Antagarq. Distt. U,B. Kanker(CG) State |of Chliattisgarh, through Secretaiy, Deptt.1 of Tribal Wclfare, Dcpartment of D.K.S) Bhawan, Raipur (CG) CoUec|tor, Kanfcer, Distt. Knnker (CG) Distn^t Education OfiBccr, Kaaker (CO), Distt. IDhaintari (C(3) Block|Bducatkfca OfEkacr, Aat^arh, Distt. UB Kaak^r (CG) WMTi»BTITIONUNDBR AlRTICLE 2S OF THB COHSTITUTION SB: HOM. SHRI DHIREHDRjik MISHRA. J 3-2-a< Siat. Renu Kochar, Sxnt Smita Ghai, Pan^ 2. The petitioner has file<| promotion dated 29-9-2008] who was posted at as Upper Division Teacher, posted at Middle School, An^ Govemdicnt 3. Learaed counsel for fUi a ladv teaGher. Earlier on| CM<lF<v1'4lTT *<l*T<?ff tf fel<0 ipff^.K ^raifiPTsn^ OP INDIA Adtrocate xate, for fhe petitiouer. Lawycr, for the State. the iDistant petition agaiast the order of |ofAnnexure P-1, whereby the pctitioner H^her Secondaiy School, Antagarh |has beeu proinoted as Head Master aiid wifh fhe same bk>ck, petitioner subinits that thc petitioner is \ • ' ' her representation:;. her services wcre XI-HG—78 CT^I w R-fii* TT^TT 3TT^T sh*liq> N1*1(11 th*11^ ^5T •<)1<<1<141, 8>ti1y'IS, fs|<tiyli< ^?. rs^^-c.^7/0; "^ 200 SII^T TTSRi' ('^f^S.tT) attached with Btock Office subsequenfly, she has bee4 Ground taken for chaUen^n^ located in interior and is a lady aad she stioiild have |Antagarh vide Annexure P-2, however, reUeved for giving her joming at Arra. her transfer order is that Arra is tiexalite affected area. The petitioner is, a ^n posted at some other place. Deten 4. It is settled law that adiniru.strative decision. orders sliould only be ia employer to decide when, servant is transferred froin has no jurisdlctiou to intf aaatter of Mohd. Mssood 151) reported in (2007) 8 SCC, various judgments of the principte oflaw laid down in| transfer is a part of fhc should not be interfered of its discretionaiy jurisdic^ lm.ds that either the ordef prohibit such teansfer or were uot competentto pass q)l*ll<n*l1l 'RTO^ff ^f f3T^' if^l^K ^aifin sn^l tifansfer is an exigency ofservice and is an Interference bv the Courts with transfer Iverv rare cases. It is entirely for w|tiere and at what point of tunc, a public ]|t»present posting. Ordinarity, the Court intej-fere with fhe order of transfer. In the l&hmad -v- State of U.P. and others ), the HonTile Apex Court referring to the H^n'bic Supreme Court, has hdd fbat "fhje the aforesaid decision is that an order of s|ervice conditiou of an employee, which wi1|i ordinarify by a court of law in exerctee dic^ion under Article 226, unless tfae Court is malafide or that the service rules fikat fae authonties who issued the order khe ordera." -~~ XI-HG—78 311^1 ^Tf<;-( WT 3^V shW* *ir*RtT «l*1|c(» '3^ •<<I^IC|4|, ®tll<H'IS,fq<11'Mll,< ' y.CO^D-^^ •W[, 200 Sf^[ 'T?q7 ('^^(3^1) TOTiWHfeiai^fi 3- 5. ln view of tiie above s without aay substance, the accordingly dismissed. i^tfled prmciple, the mstant peUtlon is bame deserves to be disimssed aad te eM<|[t»)<fl'T *11*1<nf ^ 'fe'Sl' '(^i'^R ^? STfillT 3lA?T Sd/- \ Dhirendra Mishra Judge g & .«&