rc—78 3IA5I ^lRi'ti* 'TWt 3TT^9T sta^w ruii &. II 'l ^irii ^^•^la:11«*l^|B>/ol*f<tS^;f^:S'flt)^ ^^^•^•^m 311^51 'q^i' (lj»l(^«|i^T) TOirat ^iftn ai^n PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Wri.t Petitiou under Artii S.B. HOS'BLB SHRI DHIRE3 21.10.2008:- Siat. Hamida Siddiciue. Shri Yashwaat Singh Shri P.K. Bhadiiri, Panel Law-it chHfCT^Ii lfl*-)<nl* ^f is<<l ^Rii^R ^TSifiPT 3(I^( R tt G.K. Paachbhave, S/o late A.R. Paiichbhave, aged about 46 years, Occupation Sub Eiigineer . (Public), Wafer Resources Sub Division Keshkal (iinder Water Resources Divisioa Kondagaon) District Bastai- (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough Secretaiy, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhavan., Ra3pUT(CG) Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division Kondagaon, District Bastar Code No.041 !CG} • Lata Usendi, Minister of State Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Vibhag, State of eiibattisgarh, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG): ^ Election Coniiaission of India, New Delhi.flu-ough Secrctary. le 226 oftlie Constitution oflndial ,J. •ounselfor the petitioner. 'hakur, Deputy Advocate Geaeral wiUi •r for fhe State/respondents No.l aad2., T :!;f;!|y ^lliW^t^fHi' flliiT<HR?T ?n<-flcf> 'ss '3^ ^wwi, ^Tily'Ko, faai'yy <flfl<'(T35h*ll<»» '^200 311^1 'tl^ (Tj?f3^1) ?«iW^f?nSTT^T •^' tralasfer ti^uisfeb"ed Heard. This is fhe 2nd round ^To.3808/2008 against the 2008 whereby he was Keshkal to Water Resourcd Eugineer, was disposed of representatioa agam.st, his tra[ State counsel that representa[ the concemed authorite', tn wittiin a period of two'weetes taken tffl the disposal of the ij lias been considered snd dec! dated 2-9-2008 pfAnnexure-3 on fhe ground tliat he was tra) PoUcy, as f&ere was serious Leanied counsel for thd has been transferred at fhe io|s to be fhe Mirusfer ui fhe Stat reriresentative of Keshkal n<t departiaent aad tlie petitioaei) obUge respondent No.3. It is setUed law that but also a condition of servic4. a Public Undertakiug has an.y) place or place of his choice. <»)piif?i<il'r( *if*i<'?t ^f fs*^ <R'I+$I'(: ^siRiHsii^r of litigation, EarUer Writ Pctition (S) ^ •• • trajasfer order ofthe petitioner dated 19-6- froin Wat.er Resoiirces Departiaeat, Departinent, Ganyabaadh, as Sub ^n.fh Bberty to the petitioner to raake ~absfer order aud it was subniitted by the ildori shall be considered and decided bv lccoriaiice vvifh law, on its own nierits, |uid no coei-cive steps were directed to be 'presentation. The above representation jided by t]ae respondent/State vide oi~der 1 aad representatioh has been rejected ^isferred as perclause 5.4 offhe Transfer :(jiaplaiat agauist tlie petitioner. petitioner subiaitted that the petitioner of responde.nt No.3, who happens of Chliattisgarh aad she was iiot even ^r sbe was minister of the petitioner's has been traiisferred because he did not ta4nsfer is.not onlv aa incideace of sen'ice No Govemiaent servaut oreiaployee of legal right to be' posted at any pgrticular *he Court should ordiiianly not uiterfere ^f dia itilstance %-HC—78 s^v Tt R-ti* ^WT 3TT^iT "sFRW J' "I Barve ^'sr'^i'4i<ri'4,.afl1'y<i6,fa<ni'My *II*ICTI <bHlth "^200 311^1 XOTT (•{ql^l'i'l) ^nw^fto aii^i Ihe iri exeicise of.discretionan^ v transier under Article 226 of luids fhat either fhe order is szich £raD.sFer;''-6r that the auti were not cqifl.petent authoiity OTduiaEily.iiK^.Tnterfere with ft(< is issyed arbitrarilv or raaU iiiidelines or Qie rules goveraln Thus, haying regard consideriiig ffaat Qie earUer already disposed of wifh representation has been defc aufhonty assignuig i^asons, ground for uiterfeiEnce by fhi|c Ai-ticfe 226 oftlie Constitutiorl petitioner. Accordingly, tlie stage itself. 'hllitrl'A't 111'ffif if 1y^ Xf^R?TC ^sifim sii^i ^ itrisdiction of fhe State in fhe niatters of Constitation of India unless the Court wf ijaalaiide or that tlie service rules prohibit (Iiorities, who issued the transfer driers, Ito pass such orders. The'Courts should traiisfer order unleas tlie transfer order jifidely or in violation of aay operative tlie transfer. |o ^ tlie above sejtfled priiiciple of law, ijvrit petitiori.Bledby tlie petifioner was lberbr -to file representation smd the •ided and rejected by tlie corapetent I am. of fhe oriinion that tliere is no u|s Coiu-t in. exercise of iurisdiction under of India against the transfer order of tlie petition is disxaissed at Tlie adniission -SdA... , Dhu-enaraKlishra