IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ^l W.P.NO..U:>.t.o./2006 ^snsl'' !.'li3r2i ^'s y^.; -e^ ^ ^ 2 u PETITIONER ^?^-, ,'ft..-- ^f&^^- ,.-n;o-'^s^>-""" ?-T" ^S^-^-P^--"" •BS'""^ ' ^•••" ;Nagre) Shrimati Sharda Na^le,aged 40 years, D/o Mangal Singh Nagfte A.N.M. Kongiyakala, Block and Tahsil Saja, Disfrict Durg C.G.) &»<s VERSUS RESPONDENTS :(1) The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department Ministry, D.KL.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Chief Chikitsa and Health Officer, Durg. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT DM TEGE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORABI, PRQHIBITION AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WMT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. The petitioner respectfuUy fumishes the particulars of the writ petition as under:- F + XI-HC-22 3(1^1^1 R-fi.'* sfs^v ^'\^ ^^a TST -^ww^, ^wi^.hwwy.. 1<) wwirwirai ),,.(?.,^r>.:...J~'8/3^06 "W^ 200 'i^^T' SII^TS^IIW^g Shri Surya Kant Mishra, couns^l Shri Sandeep Dubey. Gbvt. Acjvocate for the State. CM<4ld4lTl TTH^f "^ fe1[^t '<^r-RT< ^ 3Tf;tIT 311^1 . 2. The petitioner Kas fifed the transfer dated 14-11-2005 whereb\ Durg to Korea on the ground that it is 3, Learned counset for the State transfer has been made in exigency 4. The Apex Court in the casi .Sunaomal Poshani reponed in Clj incident of serviceand employee ha; The Apex Court further in the case in ASR 1991 SC_532 has held orders when are made in public i^ they are made jn violation of manda^ fide and that even where executive Ipreserit petition chalienging the order of the petitioner has been transferred from. [contrary to transfer poiicy. — opposes the petition and submits that the r service. ('.••..': of Guirat Electrjcit^ Board vs_Atmaram 2 SCC 602 held that transfer is an no right to be posted at a particular place. Rrs. Shiloi Bose vs. State of Bihar reported he Courts should not interfere with transfer srest or on administrative grounds unless ory statutory rules or on the' ground of mala |nstructions are viotated, the Court ordinarily shall not interfere and.the concerne|d transferee employee should approach the ', higher-ups in the departmsnt for th^ reitef. in the same decision, it is aiso held [•T^tf^ f- + XI-HC-22 ^er ^Wvff, '^ftWR, Isiinwy 20 *imwr gitfrai .W...::?..:.^P..:...S.l^_j 50& fc "V^ 200 fa'bt^I' ail^rq? R'ii.* snt^i sBira'Hfta sn^rwiRR^ri^r z' that even where the transfer is eff< hardship, the same shoutd not be inter 5. , in the case of Union ofindia vs jcted on request of employees to avoid feredwith bythe Courts. S.L Abbas reported. in f1993) 4 SCC 357 the Apex Court has held that no emp| to a place of his choice. Furthermo( Kourav reported in (1995) 3 SCC 27Q ide reiative hip; it is for caused to an employee from transfer) review of fhe transfer order. To t'n4 '^nqfaqh tmaf •9-feizttf3R?R ^TSlPOTBfI^r oyes has any vested right to seek transfer e, m State of Madhva Pradesh vs. S.S. ihe Apex Court held that the Court cannot the administration ,to appreciate on a representation that may be made by ^ie concerned employee and that hardship is'not and cannot be a ground for judicjal same effect is the decision of the Apex Court in Union oflndia vs. H.N. Kirtartia reported in f 1989) 3 SCC 445. In Abani Kanta Rav vs. State of Orissa reporled in 1995 Suopl.(4} SCC 169 , the Apex Court opined that a transfer which is with by the Courts un!ess it is showi fides or infraction ofanyprofessed no 6. This Court whiie deciding Writ Limited vs, B.P. Sharma and others' transfer. lnpara21 of the said order, "21. Having consldered parties, in the opinion of this fen incident of semce is not to be interfered )i to be cieariy arbifrary or vitiated by mala fm or principie governing the transfer. [Petition No.2007/2004 (Ferro Scrap Nigam 6n 6/1/2005 has dealt with the matter of |t was held as under: the ri^ial conteniion o/the learned counsel forthe (fourt, ihe transferjs an exigency of seryice. [l^ifig^ XI-HC-22 're? -'iNlcf'i), d-dlwid, faciitiy 21 i<ra?ir shiich -LA}. ^.:3^>.:....sr^2-v6& 'V^ 200 l^^r' 311^1 ^I R<-li.+ '31^1 ?lT*<R) ^fttT sn^i'g^iiwote ^± !t is well seWed )at no go^ undertaking has any legal righ^ place as it is not only an mj contention of ieamed coum transferred is not correct. Thai Court is not sustainable. respondent no.1 cannot be tr^ ^mment servant or empksyee of pubiic to be post^d forever at any one particular :ident but a condition of servjce. The ^ei for respondent ffisat he cannot b^ part of the order oi the iearned tndustr'at TAe ffnding .of the Sndustriai Court that ^nsferred is against the canon of service 7. This Court has also recently transfer- of an empioyee in W.P.N,^ alteration of conditions of service to cannot be said to be punitive in natur^ employee has no right to be posted s| a transferabie post has no legal rigfcit fi^^i *n*icrf ^ fe^ Tf^r^K' ^ srfign an^T jsonsidered the aforesaid issue regarding b.4960/2005 (N.D. Atulkar vs.. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and has h^ld that it js we!! settied by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and Higfi Courts that transfer of a Government or pubtic servant who is appointed to a-qadre oftransferabie postfrom one place to another, is an ordinary incident of sei|vice and, therefore, does not result in any violation of mandatory statutory rule^ his disadvantage and therefore, fransfer . Transfer is an incident of service and an |t a particular plaee. An employee hofding to insist for his posting at a particular place of his choice., Transfer of public s^rvant made on administrative grounds of public interest shouid not be interferep with by the Courts unless ttiere is strong and pressing grounds rendering th^ transfer order illegal.on the ground of or on the ground of mala fide or on the ground of lack of authority. The Coi^rts or the Tribunals cannot sit as appeilate [•^liifi^ 4- XI-HC-22 'S^I •^l'illd*), Btfl^'ie, (««niu>i< WHPtT ShHlcb _.ia.^.;.:N..o.^..?..f&y^606' ra> ' wi 200 an^rqn F<-)i«b sn^T shuicti <if?fl r/ '-^' gn^i^CTT^R^f^T -^ Court on the orders of the transfei reason for this self-imposed restraint be allowed to run smoothly and the interdict the administrativesystem. 8. In vlew of the law laid down b( the aforesaid cases and further th^ sen/ice, not a case for settlng asi4 extraordinary jurisdiction under Artij However, the petitioner may make| authority, which shali be conside) accordance with law. 9. Accordingiy, thepetition stand^ chN^'iftrf'Hj*ii^l''^f^^ <p;i^r< ' i73ri:TO3n^T ^ made on administrative grounds. The lis that the wheels of administration should pourts or the Tribunals are not expected to the Apex Court and also by this Court In fact that the transfer is an exigency of e the transfer order whiie exercising the le 226/227 of the Constitution of India. the representation before the competent ed and decidedon its own merits in disposed of. Sdl- F& (udd'v" .iud9e [xft^ ^^