C4? ‘ ”37/“ $5ix§G§£ mw IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [S] NO. CL! 19 /’2010 PETITIONER: / 1. Sfm‘e RESPONDENTS: K7 Lal/Kumar Vafshnav, son of Lm‘e shri Preefam Das, aged 52 years, Secretary— Krishi Upaj Mandi Samih‘, Kasdoi, DisTricT Raipur (CG) Vs of Chhaffisgarh Through; ‘rhe SecreTor‘y, Departmenf of Agriculfure, D.K.S. Bhawan, 2.?h‘haffisgar‘h Krishi Vipnan Board, fhrough ifs Managing Direcforl BeeJ' Bhawcm, Chha’r’risgarh Hofel, Ravigram, ~ /Teh‘bandha, Raipur (C6) 3; The President, Chha'rh'sgarh Krishi Vipnan Board, Beej Bhawan, Chha’rTisgarh Hofel, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur / (CG) 4. The Managing Director, ChhaHiSgarh Krishi Vipnan Board, BeeJ Bhawan, Chha‘rfisgarh Hotel, Ravigram, Telibangdha, Raipur (CG) 5. Shri J.K. Kawar, son of & age nof known To The'pe’rl‘Tioner, Man’rmlay, Raipur. 7 @ Secrefcry— Krishi Upaj Mandi SamiTi, Balod, Dis’rrid Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22,6 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF INDIA. M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5419 OF 2010 PETITIONER Lav Kumar Vaishnav Versus ESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article _226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. No.2 to 4. Shri Rahui Tamaskar, Advocate for the respondent No.5. _ ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 12m day of July, 201 1 ) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order No.B-1/1/49/10~11/3828 dated 31-8-2010 (Annexure — P/1) and the order No.Mandi/Estb./2010-1 1/584 dated 31-8-2010 (Annexure -— P/2), being illegal, arbitrary and ma/a fide. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Secretary in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. By order dated 26-8~2010, the petitioner was transferred from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kasdol, District Raipur to Krishi Upaj Mandid Samiti, Balod, District Durg. The petitioner was relieved from Kasdol on 27-8-2010. Thereafter, the petitioner had joined at Balod on 28-8—2010. After his joining at Balod, the order of transfer dated 26-8-2010 has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 31—8—201 0 (Annexure — P/1). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already executed the earlier transfer order dated 26~8~2010, therefore, K @ Shri Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the respondents \ R transferring him to any Other place from Balod, a fresh transfer order would be required. Learned counset also submits that smce the year 2007 tlll today the petrtroner has been transferred for eight (8) trmes the details of which have been mentloned In para 8.2 of the petition. The petitioner also submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed with male fide intention only to accommodate the respondent No.5 in place of the petitioner Thus, the impugned orders may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the transfer is an exigency of service and the petitioner has been-transferred in the public interest. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner Without raising his grievances before the respondent authorities has straight away come to this Court. Even the petitioner has failed to prove the alleged mala‘fide. From perusal of the record it appears that between the period 24 2 2007 and 31 8 2010 ie wrthin a period of 31/2 years the petitioner has been transferred eight times and posted at various places, which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. Though, it is prerogative of the employee to transfer/post an employee in public interest and administrative exigency, but the above action of the employer in the case of the present petitioner is unwarranted and unjustified. The aforesaid impugned action of the respondent authorities may cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the employee like the petitioner. Even otherwise, as per the transfer policy prescribed by the State Government from time to time, it is‘apparent that no employee \ can be transfe 21/2 years at a particular place of posting. ln view of foregoing, the impugned order N 11/3828 dated 31-8—2010 (An No.Mandi/Estb.l2010-11/584 dated 31-8—2010 (An are quashed. in the resuit, the writ petition is ailowed to the'abov order asto costs‘ Gowri K i r \ ‘ \ x ‘1 ‘ period of rred before completion of the mihimum o.B—‘1/1/49/10— nexure — P11) and the order nexure —- P12) e extent. No Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge