;"-f ?. tSAf'",!'",^S ^S>- '•i'^''1''^' 'i'f-QR^i ^^ti£i fc JN THEHON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURT^^ WRIT PeTITION (S)NO. OF 2009 PETIT10NER . 1^^ ^•Ci^. ^ ,Q<''fy^' ^ ^ y D. R. Bhagat, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Shri., Keshwar Bhagat, Occupation- Sevrice, working as Assistant Commissioner (Tribal Development), Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^. 1 <^. ^. 2. 3. 4. 5. ys State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Collector (Adivasi Vikas) Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) Shri Pragyan Seth, Asstt. Commissioner (Tribal Development), C/o Collector (Adivasi Vikas), Dhamtari, Dist. Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) Chief Electoral Officer Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) Election Commission of India through its Secretary, Nin/achan Sadan, Ashoka Road, NewDelhi 110001 ?RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ,,'^ONSTITUTIONOF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN ^^TH&' NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAIVIUS AND r<y QTHER SU1TABLE WRlT OR WR1TS DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ORDER ORORDERS, The petitioner, named above, most respectfully submits as under:- 1. PARTICULARSOF TME PEtlTIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. :^t^^ "s XI PETITIQNER H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritjnker Diwaker) WritPetition (S)No.1487 D.R.Bhagat VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of C.G. & others. (^^. A..' Shri Manindra Shrivastava learned Sr. eounsel with Shri Ashish Shrivastava Advocate for the petitipner. Shri Pravin Das GA for the respondents. Shri C.D. Chelak, OIC ofthe case is also present. WRIT PET1TIONUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OFINDIA ORDER (04.09.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In the present petition, the petitioner who is working as Assistant Commlssioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Dhamtari, calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 by which he has been transferred to the office of Commissioner, Tribal Welfare and Scheduied Caste Development, Raipur. By the same order respondent No.3 has also been transferred from Raipur to Dhamtari Le. at the present place of petitioner's posting. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred on the basis of the ietter dated 4.2.2009 issued by the Election Commission of India whereby a direction has been issued 1' for transferring the persons who have completed three years in a particular piace of posting or those who are posted in their home districts. He however submits that in this case neither the petitioner has compieted three years at Dhamtari as he had joined there on -^ '"s.- .*».. 7.8.2007 nor is it his home district and therefore, in these circumstances he should not have been transferred. 3. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/State submits that the petitioner has not been transferred pursuant to the letter dated 4.2.2009 issued by the Election Commission of India but his transfer is totally on accountof administrative exigency which is clearly mentioned in the impugned transfer order dated 20.2.2009 itself. According to him, mere reference of the said letter in the order impugned doesnot mean that the order has been passed pursuant thereto. He submits that as there was administrative exigency for transfemng the petitioner, proposal for the same was made by the department and subsequent to that he has been transferred. He also submits that in compliance of the order impugned, respondent No.3 has alreadyjoinedat Dhamtari on 2.3.2009. Lastty he submits that the petitioner has completed more than 1 and % years in the present place of posting and therefore his transfer is just and reasonable. 4. In compliance with the order passed by this Court iearned State counsel has produced the original note sheets regarding the transfer of the petitioner as wellas respondent No.3 which clearly show that the transfer of the petitioner is actuated by the administrative exigency. In the proposat given by the department, apart from the petitioner there were other nSmes also who were required to be transferred and it is pursuant to the said proposal Government has passed the transfer order. State counsel has also produced a separate list showing the names of the persons who have been transferred pursuant to the letter dated 4.2.2009 of the Election Commission of India on the ground of having completed ; threeyears in a particular place of posting or their piace of posting being the home district. 5. As regards the point whether the petitioner has assailed the transfer order which has been passed on administrative ground, admittedly in the entire petition the petitioner has not taken any other ground for chailenging the transfer order but for the reference of the tl ••-.. 3- letter dated 4.2.2009. Even otherwise, the transfer is an incidence of service and the Government is always at liberty to transfer its employees keeping in view the administrative exigency. 6. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that the order impugned has been passed without any mala fides or arbitrariness. This, in fact, has been passed keeping in view the administrative exigency involved in the matter. Thus no interference is called for with the order impugned and accordingly the petition has no force andit isdismissed as such. ^-— y Sd/- . ,, pritinkerDiwakar Judge ' ^lte