tilhri CO‘ITR133F CHHA‘I“I“1SGARH. HILASPU’R M W. ”P. (S1 No. 3705 of 2008 PE’i‘i’l‘IGNER K11. Silly Thomas, Dlo Thomas Abrn‘ium {T“h°1"dar\ gsd ab'm? Q” vears R/O lajlsndar Aalang, 1J1smct Pa1h11r{("r‘\ V8 fsus 1"“x *‘za‘c. RESPGNDENTS i Stata 01' Uhnattisgarh' Through “ppm“ Sucrnmw, Rvvs£us .Md Ulsaster Manag€ment Department nIzQ nhmmn pmpw’ Diqmcg U x. “I A. N‘ A Kalpur (KAI; 2 Th9 (‘0JP0101 Papwnr D1<f1jhf Parn'nr ‘ (bu) WRIT QE’i‘I‘i‘i3N FlLhD UNDER A“ llbh F (*n rrnm np‘ “in Appearance: Shn’ Anurag Jha, counsei for the petiu‘oner. Shri Yashwant Smgh, Dy. Advocal'e General for the State. §gg1m KUMAR sm'HAgg;‘ Heard. The peutioner, Who is worKmg on the post oi’i‘ahslldar, has been transferred irom ’I‘ansil Aarang, Distu‘ct Raipur to District Durg on admmistrative grounds vide order dated 5‘11 July, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the pennoner was transferred to Aarang on bf“ May, 2008 only and within a peljod OI two months, she has again been transterred'irom Aarang to Durg. He refers to document Annexure 1-72, which is an order dated 6m_ May, 2008. A perusal of the order dated 6&1 May, 2008 would show that in fact, it was a promouon order of the petitioner along wim other co—employees and after promoting her from the post of Nalb ’l‘ansildar to ‘Ifahsildar, she was posted at Aaran Q Ulstrict Rarpur. Therefore, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner by taking a ground of frequent transfer in the matter of Q. '<\\t/he petitioner, does not appear to be well rounded. @ b z&b O wr ' n: 2 ‘ The Apex Cou ws de in wi e maer of Ke Vmyataya Sangathan 4’s; Damodar Prasad PaMeyJ 2004 AIR SCW 3 f‘ i d d p 556 reer'nng' to varous decisions has observo Via ara 4 as foliows: ranst'er wh is an mcicencs of servico is not to be ierfered with b e Courts unless it is sown to e Cearl nt v th h b lv mh‘lmx or vitiated by malaiEde or infracon of oily presce nou of principie governing e ‘ansfer {See Ambani Kanta gay Vs. State of @éssgy. nless the gr“ of transfer is Vitiated by maia ide or is made 1'11 vioiation of operative g lis, the Cot ct ierfere with {See ‘Ut «iff z it's. 5.13. éErEia. W110 ‘! shouid be u‘ansed and posted Where is a mattr for the adminisraive auor to Unless of trsfer s 31 or is mae m Vioaion 0 oeraive an uees 0 rues t Co 51101. . not orcljia mterf af . m t. x s oserved as oow. No Govemme at servan or emloee of a uiic awm gg rcrsva- at aIl 0116 al‘al‘ .C€ 01" aCE O lls C01C€ SmCE k u f a t e any t ii‘ties‘t an u y in the ulic adinistratio Unles an orer 01' tra is shown to be an outcome of a tc exerc1se or state to e m Vion 0 statutory provisions orehibitng any such transfer, the Courts or the Tri ais normally cannot interfere wh ch orders as a matter f routin as ou were e apps ate nuthorities sobsutina their w“ desision Iorrrnat ol the empioyee,’ management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative ex1gene1es oi the serv1ce concerned. ine posu'ion was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroefecm'c PowerCmpn. 13rd. Vs‘ Shri Bhugwan" In View of the above position oflaw, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of transfer of the petitioner, as the petitioner could not make out a case of maiaiide, or extraneous considerations or that the order has been passed against any statutory rule or the Act. The petition stands dismissed at the motion stage itself; Stif- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge VLML i; n i Y DUCul ‘)[a pl I I n transfer of a parin lar employee appointed to the class or categmy'or t'ransferabie posts ivoiu one pice to another is not only an inciden, but a condition. of service, ii oo in pubiic ie d emcie pb mn s d ns er u. 3 fd d b latio 1 i b uu it su o e mgn mev th mt mnxw w am w 94“$5. » r W P ($3 No.37U5i2UU8 rt nil a lg th th tt ndriua “l‘ icn t ty n noa ns m u r U eet f 1. 'dene ur anno nt it inm y 'u sl \ fcu e tt thi‘v d Ci’ e “1e order an i m mted b" 9‘“ 1:19 d it 1 pt v gmim 1 l he urts 1 d iwiv e my ”mum (m ilfwu‘a Va cwtuan 1iauuluwl $ mange? it x a b Ilis .i t py pb uindimw 1mm k1“ ‘a‘ man W hp Imwmd m