m Late $1rx ’xaamuran“ E Aged abcut L33 year Asggiam’ .eag‘ac M Kahr 1dc§§e \chw £3nrihar£ cha m a ba R a: xb ar a_ m I "ér- n35 Paié‘r; rv=\ EEE—QS E§ ‘?§ $E§€ $av= i3? ‘hmjimy hrwgh the cr Amm Jeni gvum kmwchtt Jam Vik Vlbbag 5% Bhawan Ramu ’C e wsaw lwag: v‘2a5: \i‘ibha Faa gh ‘ etarv as , r C‘ W wer «r #4 ‘k g pr rcr‘} 3m W ey, mkant wh dmas: Kt ib ré§- wha CS The Cd?e"’ter K ) ama Wst ict~Kc€baiCG Th Eam Wr G e Big? ucatt ea 35am hyha Disfmct-Karba fQ S m dwa' s r Ek K . its EEEmCv¥~ba gCC) A ‘ i} A was Vhég B§ K {} ”’ '‘ ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATIISGARH AT BILASBIJR‘ m' f 20 Writ Pet'on No. 3964 o 04 Kjrtan Lal Bhaldwaj -rsus-‘ State of hhattisgarh & others Post for order on 23 aSeptember, 2005. y‘ VA‘, r / w ' Satjsh K.- Agnihotrif Judge Sd/— Ve C S f HIGH COURT OF CHIIATIISGARH AT BIL -'‘ ASPUR ' Writ P€tihon No. 3964 of 2004 Kirt al Bhaniaj -Vrsus- Ste f htia d others ta o Chatsgrh 8 . i, r vt th Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocats fo h 'n. / . o, Dp Advtc General with Mr. Pankaj tva e o es . , 2, 4 and 5. M. shis hntva Aocae o e espondent No.3. r Ah S‘vasa, dvt fr th R l 1 2$‘.’Septemb 2) ' . o le ricl 7 of the Consu'tution of 1 The present petitin hd under Ate 226] 22 ' g x .O4 (exure P] 1) whereby the ' ‘ titi be rsrd Middle School, Andheri ' ‘1 , ock t-b th Middle School, ’I‘iwarta, l isc- ad been passed by the sdent n Tribal Development parmie, Korba vDent . . s i re, ee se of judication are that the peti'nr s a t h as working at Middle Scl e , l 8 r—oa had been transferredt t o l, iw, o Pali, District— Korba, s di y sen N.3. 3. . e ssisted by Mr. P. R. e e h‘tioner submitted that se h e pas u t administrative exigency the tranfr order ad not ben sed de o an L w e Mr. P Dwakar Senio Adocae wi r te pehu'oer Mr. P S. Kshy euty oca Shlivasé, Advocat fr the Respondnt No 1 O R D E R (er 005 _By Justice Satish K. Apihoui. India impuns the oder dated 237.2Q Ann peoner had en tanfere fmm the Kachar Bl 85 DisrictKora to e Boys Block- Pai, DtritKorba. This order h Repon No. 3/Assistat Commissioner, 2 The fact n bif rlvant for the purpo ad hoe, who i n Assisant Teacer, w hoo, Andhn‘ Kachar Bock n Distict‘Krb o the Bys Middle Schoo Tarta Blck— within the ame strict b the Repondt o Mr. P Diwakar, learned Snior Advocate, a Patan:kar, learned counsel, apparing for th pe but 1t had been passed 1n mal$de exercise of powers by the Respondent No 3 The pehtloner 1s PIeSIdent of the Anusuchlt Jatl Anusuch1t Japjan, Adhlkari Avam Kamchari’ Sangh (hereinafter referred to "AJAKS”) of Disiriet Braneh — Korba. The petitioner was x exempted &om being transfened as per theiState Government’s Policy“ dated 24.6. 1996 to the eh‘ect that the President and Secretaxy of the 3 recognized Employees Associau'on 'at State and DishiCt level should i not be transferred for three years. After completion of three years the President and Secretary could be hansferred. It is thither submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.3 namely Shn Snkant Dubey, who had taken over as Assrstant Commssmner, fiih Tribal Development Department at Korba does not hke the people belonging to the category of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled 'Tribe .; and the impugned transfer had been made due to hatred of the R _ Respondent No.3. To substantiate this allegation, learned counsel L1 U submitted thatone Assistant Teacher-namely Shri Jati Ratn Anand, ’ I by caste Satnami, was harassed to the extent by the Respondent [ No 3 that he had committed smelde on 24 9 1995 Learned counsel i 4» next contended that despite the note sheet of the Chief Minister (Annexure P/7) that the transfer of the petihoner be cancelled the ohicers at the State level and district level have dehberately not comphed w1th the direction of the Chief Munster Further, son of the petitioner is studying in 12th Class and the change of institute will A affectthd result ofhis son. . . . ‘ ./ r 4 i. ‘L : Mr Pankaj Shrrvastava learned Panel lawyer, assisting Mr P S V w Koshy, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the Respondents] State, on the contrary submitted that the petlhoner was working as Assistant Teacher at the parncular place (Andhen Kachar) Since 8 1 1988 and the petrhoner was not exempted under the said ‘ 13g ' ‘ policy decision dated 24.6.1996, aé. the pe1it'oner had served at the particular place for more than 3 years i.e. about 16 years of setvice,’ from Whele the petmoner had been transferred to the new place 1 e Tlwarta Block-Pall w1th1n the same d1str1ct It was submtted that the hausfer was made due to admlmstratlve extgency as the petltloner alone was not transfened but 152 mom persons were transferred horn one place to other place Accordmg to , learned counsel for the respondents/State out of' 153 persons transferred by the imPug1ed order, ,30 persons belonged to Scheduled Caste; 40 persons belonged to Scheduled Tribe and remaining 83 r persons belonged to General and other backward classes. The transfer order was not passed by the Respondent No.3 on his own, but as per ' I i the recommendation ' made by the District Level Coordination x. Committee for Transfer (hereinafter referred to “Committee’m Under the transfer policy, a list is prepared district—wiselwhich is sent to the Committee and all the n‘ansfers are made on the basis of the e recommendations made by the saidrcommittee. The Committee, in the 3 present case, was'comprised of the Minister Incharge, the Collector ' and the Assrstant Commlssroner, Tribal Development Department A list of 153 persons has been hled as Annexure R 5(A) Learned counsel for the respondents] State submitted that there is no *i‘ malaflde exercise of pOWers by the Respondent No3, as ’the‘ g Respondent No3 alone 1s not responsrble for nansfemng' ,employees/Asswtant Teachers and the transfer orders were issued by ‘ a thee Respondent No.3 and» other omcers 'on the. basrs of the 1 recommendation of the Committee 'In regard to other serious allegations about hatred of the Respondent § : § No 3 towards the particular commumty 1 e S C and S T and that one Asmstant Teacher committed sulcrde due the harassment made by‘ ‘ _, Respondent No.3, the Secretary, Government of Chhath'sgarh, Department of S.C. and S.T. Development was directed‘to file a$davit Shri M. K. Raut, Secmtary, Govt‘ of Chhattisgarh, Depaffment of SC/ S.T. Development, Raipur had $ed two afl‘idavite dated 2.8.2005 and 16.8.2005 Whexein it was stated that a complaint containing 17 points against the Respondent No.3 was made by the Union, requesting nansfer of the Respondent No.3 to any other place. The matter was examined on the basis of the enquixy conducted by the Sub Divisional O$cer (Revenue) wherein all theiallegations including the allegation of suicide committed by one Assistant Teacher namely Shli Jah' Ram Anand; levelled against the Respondent No.3, Welt found not proved. Thereafter, again a complaint containing 4O points was submitted by the Union which are part of the petition also The matter was referred tn the Collector Korba and also to the r Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department for conducting enquiry. :The allegations were basically for transferring the Respondent No.3 horn r the present place of posting to any other place of posh'ng. Learned I counsel for the respondents/State submitted that the transfer was ’ made due to administrative em'gency and the Respondent No.3 had no role to play in getn'ng as many as 153 persons; including the ' petitioner,»transfened to various places Mr. _ dshish ‘Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No 3 submltted that the Respondent No 3 was not 1n a r posmon to mnuence the deemion of the Committee chaired by the Munster Incharge and the Collector of the district was also a member For transfemng employees Within the district a hst was prepared ’ verified» and scrunmzed by the Committee thereafter the order of transfer was passed on the bas1s of the recommendation of the Committee.‘ It is further submitted that thezpersonal allegations I “1&5? against the Respondent No.3 of ma1a&ie and disliking of the Respondent No.3 towaxtis the community of the S.C. and S,T. is without any basis and the petiu'oner has not established and proved any bias. The petitioner has made vague and wild allegations which had been examined by the Sub Divisional Ohicer (Revenue) at the direction of the concerned Secretaxy to the Government, and all the allegations have been found untnle. The petitioner had not made any allegation against the Committee. The Respondent No.3 is discharging functions as Assistant Commissioner of Tubal Development Department, Korba. There is no question of any ill-Will and malice against any member of the S.C. or S.T. community. The Respondent No.3 has been assigned the responsibility of the development of the tribal community and in his long career the Respondent No.3 had not lagged behind in performance of his duties. The transfer of the petitioner was made along with other 152 persons, in the interest of administration and public, on the basis of the recommendation by the Committee. 9. Having heaid learned counsel for the parties and perusing records, I am of the View that the petitioner has failed to prove any malafide exercise of powers by the Committee which has recommended the transfer of not the petitioner alOne but 152 more persons in the interest of administration. The allegations of the petih‘oner against the Respondent No.3 had-)been found unhue by the Enquiry omcer, appointed by the Collector at the instance of the Secretary of the concerned department. The various allegations made in the averments and which have been made to the Government of Chattisgarh also, it appears, that the main purpose is to seek transfer of the Respondent No.3 from the present place of posting to any other place of posting. Further, the complaints made by the Union for the purpose of seeking (68 transfer of the Respondent No.3, which is not an issue in this mattsr, ’had already been referred to fhe Collector Korba and to the Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, for conducting enquiry and report. In case the allegations are found proved, the appropn'ate action may be taken by the Government against the Respondent No.3. 10. So far as the transfer of the petitioner is concerned, though there is exemption under the State Government’s policy dated 24.6. 1996, and the present petitioner is the President of the AJAKS at District level, but he had already spent 16 years at the present place of posting. The ban is only for three years. The transfer policy permits the transfer of the President or Secretary in case the President or Secretary of the Union had completed three years of service at one place of posting. Under these circumstances the petitioner cannot take the benefit of no transfer as per the State Government policy dated 24.6. 1996. The other allegations of malafide alleged against the Respondent No.3 are not found proved as the transfer order was made at the recommendation of the Committee, not for transferring the petiu'oner alone but 152 persons more. Out of 153 persons transferred at the recommendation of the Committee 3O persons belonged to 8.0. 4O persons belonged to S.T. and remaining 83 persons belonged to general and other back ward classes. The Supreme Court in the catena of decisions, mainly in the case of E. P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, ALB. 1974 S.C. 555 K. Narayanan 8t. others Vs. State of Karnataka & others A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 55, B. Varadha Rao Vs.State of Kamataka 85 others, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1955, Rajendra Roy Vs. Union oflndia, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1236, State of U.P. 8r. another Vs; Siya Ram 85 another, (2004) 7 S.C.C. 405, Union of India 8r. others Vs. Janardhan Debanath 8n another, @004) 4 S.C.C. 189 245, State of U.P. 8n others Vs.Gobardhan Lal, 2004 A.I.R. SCW 2082, has clearly settled the position of law that the transfer is a condition of service and necessary in the public interest and e$ciency in public administration. The decision of the employer should not be substituted in the interest of the administrative exigency of the service, except in the case of malaiide exercise of powers or violation of any statutory Rules‘ The impugned order in the present petition is passed neither in the malahde exercise of powers nor in violan'on of statutory provisions of law nor there was any complain about competence of the authority. The impugned transfer order is passed in the administrative necessity. 12. It is, therefore, held that the impugned transfer order has been made on the ground of administrative exigency as well as in the public interest. 13. The petitioner has filed a note sheet of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh as Annexure P/ 7 wherein it appears that the Chief Minister after consideration of the representations has directed to cancel the present transfer order. It is not clear as to how the petitioner had obtained a copy of the note- \ sheet. The obtaining oflicial document of the Govt. indicates about the conduct of the petitioner and this is highly deprecated. However, if there is any order passed by the Govt. canceling/modifying the impugned transfer order that may be considered by the State authorities. t For the reasons stated above the petition is dismissed, no order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Saash K. Agnihou'iw Judge