•k^ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITJ'ETITION ^(S) No. 1729 of 2009 PETITIONER Sarit Baran Mitra S/o Shri K.C.Mitra, aged about 48 years, Resident of LIG 110, Amadi Nagar, HUDCO, Bhilai, District Durg of Chhattisgarh, Presently posted as Secretary (Senior) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Nevara, District Raipur of Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, (Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board) Through their Managing Director, Beej Bhawan, Ravi Gram, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipiu- of Chliattisgarh. 2. Shri Ramcharan Verma, Secretary (Senior) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kasdol, District Raipur of Chhattisgai-h. 3. The State of Chhattisgrah through their Secretary, Agriculture Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Rajkamal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15U1 day of April, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 2 March, 2009, (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner has been transfeEred from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Newra, Raipur to ICrishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kasdol, Raipur, on administrative grounds. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was eariier posted at Kurud. By order dated 2.8.2008 (Annexure P/2), he was transferred to Newra. Again, vide order dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner has been transferred from Newra to Kasdol and the said transfer has been made at the instance ofthe respondent No. 2 as the respondent No. ^ 2 has good political approach. The impugned transfer was made on the request of Member of Legislative Assembly, Baloda Bazar who instructed the Agriculture Minister to accommodate respondent No. 2 and in order to accommodate respondent No. 2, the impugned transfer order was passed. The second contention ofthe petitioner is that his ailing parents reside at Bhilai and his children are studying at Bh'lai which is 70 K.M. away from Nevara. Hence, the impugned transfer order dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure P/l) deserves to be set aside. Be that as it may, it is well-settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations (See State of U.P. and another Vs. Siya Ram and another and Gautam Prasad Nciik Vs. State of C.G. & others2). The allegation ofmalafide that on the basis of instmctions ofa Member of Legislative Assembly, Baloda Bazar, this order has been passed, no documents in support ofthis contention has been produced. However, even if it is assumed that the same was done at the instance of the Member of Legislative Assembty, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. and others as under: ".......In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recoinmendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the to-ansfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances ofthe people and ifthere is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard- and-fast rule thaf every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances ofan individual case..... " Applying the well-settled principles of law as enunciated above to the facts of the case, the petitioner has failed to prove that the alleged request of the "Tvlember of Legislative Assembly, Baloda Bazar, vitiates the impugned transfer order. The court or tribunals, which are appellate authorities should refrain from considering the niceties of administrative needs and ' (2004) 7 SCC 405 2 2007 (2) CGLJ 64 "(2007) 8 SCC 150 Ainit requirements of the situation concemed. (See State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra) summed up the scope of interference in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia, as under: "7. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constifaition of India has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal. Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh v. State of V.P. and Onkar Nath Tiwari v. Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Deptt. has held that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part ofthe service conditions ofan employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders." Having regard to the facts of the case and materials available, it cannot be held that the alleged mala fide has been proved. Thus, the impugned transfer order is proper and legal. With regard to the other permissible grounds i.e. non-competence of the officer concerned passing the order or in&action of stafaitory mles and regulations, no case has been made out. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case and in view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order asto costs. — -- —'" Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge < ^ >