^ ^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.3740/2010 ^tt^i'U.I.L.A: ,i>^..-.. * •^i^i; v PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1 Bharat Ram Dhruw, aged about 42 years, S/o Shri Sonuram Dhruw, Superintendent, Land Record, Rural Division, Collectorate Campus, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Rajasva & Apda Prabandhan Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Land Record Chhattisgarh, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector (Land Record Branch), Bilaspur (C.G.) Brijnath Sai, Superintendent land record Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (29.07.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. Petitioner- Bharat Ram Dhruw is working on the post of Superintendent, Land Records, Rural Division, Collectorate, Bilaspur. He has challenged the validity of order dated 05.07.2010, by which; he has been attached to the office of Land Records, Korba for a period of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from 26.07.2008, the petitioner was transferred many times and he was transferred to Bilaspur from Raipur vide order dated 07.06.2010 and just within a month, he is again being shifted to the office of Land Records, Korba. He further submits that '^•f"^ "^ (• WRIT PETITION (S) No.3740/2010 -)\ ^aKSv ,,uaS-i!'aji.y ysafS s 9v the said attachment is being made for adjustment of respondent No.4, who is also coming on attachment to Bilaspur from Janjgir-Champa. A perusal of the impugned order dated 05.07.2010 would show that for specific purposes of measurement of land, its survey and for preparation of torn maps ete., as many as, 40 persons of different cadres have been directed to be attached to the office of Land Records, Korba and Bilaspur. It is important to take note that the order dated 05.07.2010 (Annexure P/1) also specifies the time of one year, for which, those persons are being sent to Bilaspur and Korba for the said work. This makes clear that it is not a case of transfer of the petitioner or the other persons, but it is a case of attachment of some persons to a particular work for a particular period. In the administrative exigency, when several employees of the Government are required to complete a pari:icular public work at a particular place and that number of posts are not available at that place, the Government has to take such steps to get the work done by attachment of that number of persons for a particular time frame. It is in this view of the matter, no malafides can be attributed on the part of the Government. Attachment is not a new entry in the realm of service law. It is an incidence of service, the validity theirof can be examined on general principles. Unless the order of attachment is shown to be vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations or violative of Rules or the Act, the same cannot be set-aside in general mannerwhich may result to frustrate the public interest. So far as attaching the petitioner for adjustment of respondent No.4 is concerned, there is no material before this Court to take a view like that. Even counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate his such contention on the basis of records. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any infirmity in the action ofthe Government, by which, as many as 40 persons WRIT PETITION (S) No.3740/2010 ^ including the petitioner, have been attached to two different offices for a particular work. The action appears to be in administrative exigency. The petition has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ^-- ' SAI:.t^a s.»»^°" ;!uh!EIi3iiH3i lil'H'i] ii' ::!' I"