HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREGHHAmSGARH: BILASPUR (Division Bench) PetitioneF - ^ Respondents CORAM: Hon'bleShriS.R.NAYAK.CJ & Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. WRIT PETITION N0.4926 OF 200S (1) HaiderAliRizavi.S/o ShriYusufAli, Aged 43years, Occupation: Service, working as Asstt. Teacher, MiddleSchoolSarwani,Block— Bamhnideeh, Teh. Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS (1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary.SchoolEducaljon Department.Mantralaya, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) (2) The Secretary. General AdministrationDeparbnent, Govt. of Ghhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Shastri Chowk,Raipur(C.G.) (3) The Coltector, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (4) The DistrictEducationOfRcer, District-JanjgirOhampa(C.G.) (5) Rajendra Kumar Tiwari, Asstt. Teacher, MiddleSchool, Podidalha, Btoek- Akaltara Distt.-iJanjgirChampa(C.G.) (6) Shri Megha Ram Sahu, Hon'ble Minister, School Education, Sports and Youth Welfare, Govt.of Chhattisgarh.Raipur (0,G^ (7) Shri Batdeo Uranv, President B.J.R.Mandal.Batnnideeh, R/oChoriaviaBaradwar, Distt.Janigir<aiampa(G.Bj 43 .f^ (8) Shri MahendraShanna, Mandal Sanghatan Mantri, BJ.P.Mandal.Bamnideeh, R/o Pachori, via Bamnideeh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present: Mr. Rajeev Shrh/astava, learned counsel for ttie petitioner. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj; learned Dy. Govt. Ady., for the State of Chhattisgarh. ORALORDER (Passed on 29'" of Nbvember 200S) Thefollowing OrderoftheCourtwas|Mssed by ' S.R.Nayak, CJ: The petitioner is ateacher in a Middte School.Sarwani. By the impugned orderdatacl 31/08/2005 hahas been transferred from that Schoal to Middle SchOol, Podidalha. The validity of the said order is assailed in thiswrit petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. The impugned order is assailed on the grounds, (i) that the impugned order ts viUated by mala fides; (ii) the impugned order is passed at the instanceof respondents 7and Sand (iii) that the policylaid down by the State Government by virtue of which he has been transferred is itself iltegal in view of theorder of this Courtdated 20/08/2001 passed in Writ Petition No.1351 of 2001. These are theonly eontentions urged by Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned cdunsel forthe petitioner at the ttme ofthe argument. ' • . • • . .' ••' : ' . • • • .. . '''••-' . . . ' • . ' - (2) We do not find anymerit inallthesecqntentions. Before dealing with the contentions, it needs to benoticed the restncted scope of judicial review in the matter of transfers df public seh/ants particulariy :%y ^46 •^ Ihose employees who are working under the State. tt is well settled that it is the prerogative ofthe State-employer to decidewho should work where to meetthe exigencies ofservice and in the public interest. Thetransfer ordercould besuccessftjlly challenged onty on certain grounds;such as, (i) that the order is issued by an incompetentauthority; (ii) that the order is vitiated on account of the established mala fideand (iii) theorder isissued in contravention of mandertory provisions of any statute or regulations or rules framed thereunder. We are of the considered opinion that nons of these grounds are availabte to the petitioner to assail the validity of tha impugned order. It is tme that in the order of this Court dated 20/08/2001 passed in Writ PetitionNo.1351 of 2001. This Court has opined that confen-lng a discretion on the Minister In-charge of the department to approve transfer made in departure of the general policy would beillegal. With utmost respeet and after necessary reflections, we are not in a position to fall in line withthe teamed Chief Justice. If the State Governmentcontemplates transfers of its employees in departure of the general poliey to sub-serve extra-ordinary situatjon or axigency arising in the service under the State and in such exigency or situation, if it is provided that the transfers could be effected with the concurrence or approval of the Minister tn-charge of the department who is accountable not only to the Leglslature butatso to the ciUzenry.such conferment of power could not be attacked onany permissible grounds. Be thatas it may, it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Govemment committed any error or violated any law, in conferring such power on the Minister In-charge. Ifthe conferment of the poweron the Ministerto approve the transfer in departure ofthej policyto y r / ~ t' 4 7 meet the exigencies of the service or extra ordinary situation emerging in the department is valid, the transfer order could not be attacked on the ground that the conferment of the power on the Minister is bad in law. (3) This takes us to the second ground urg®lby Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Although leamed counsel would meekly submit that the impugned order is vitiated on account of mala fide, when wespecifically drew the attention of ttie learned counsel to teke us through the factual matrix tald in the pleadings, the onlything to which the leamed counsel would draw ourattenUon is paragraph 5.7 of the writ petition. It reads as follows: "S.7 The petitionsr finds it pertinent to mention here that a transfer polioy was framed by the State Govarnment on 30-6-2001 containlng thesimilar clause regarding approval of the minister for transfemng an employee. This policy was chaltenged before this Hon'ble Court by a bateh of petitions and one of such petition was W.P. No.1351/2001 fitsd byC.G. Anusuchit Jati AvamAnusuchit Janjati Adhikari Avam Karmachari Sangh & othere and those - petitipns were decided by the order dated 20-8-2001 passed by this Hon'ble Court and this clause regardlng approval ofthe minister for transferring an emplqyee was turned down by this Hon'ble Court. A copy of the prder passed by this Hon'bte Court is filed herewith as ANNEXURE P/4. Therefore, the present polioy is contrary to the said order passed by this Hon'ble Court. Hence it isan illegal policy and transfere cannot be made on the basis of suoh an illegal policy, However, taking the recourse of the poticy vide orcler impughed the petitioner has been transferred from Middle School Sarwani to Middle Sohool Podidalha and shooking to the petitioner when the petitioner enquired about the reasons for his transfer, the petitioner learned that the transfer has been made on the t;asis Qfaletter written by the Respondent No,7 & 8 ANNEXURE P/5\to the Incharge Minister Respondent no. 6 whioh was approved Iby the Respondent No. 6 for transferring the petitlonerfrom MiddleSohool il ii.aii W?g •?j^y^>s^ 48 Sarwanito MiddleSchool Podidalhaconsequentlythetransferorder dt. 31 -8-2005 ANNEXURE P/6. - The allegation corrtained in paragraph 5.7 is as vague as it could be and scanty. However.Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava would specffically draw our attention to the altegation thatthe transfer order wasissued on the basis of a letter written by respondents 7 and 8. It is stated in paragraph 5.7 that after receipt of the impugned fransferorder, when he made enquiry, hecameto knowthatthesbcthrespondentMjnisterpassedtheimpugned order at the behestof respondents 7 and8. Quite curtously, thesource of informatlon is not disclosed for the reasons best known to the petitidner. Be that as it may, if the respondents 7 and 8 who are holdjng eertain ofRces in local bodies and if they had made representations and the Minister In-charge even assuming that he has taten into consideration along with other materiats and uttimately decided to transfer the petitioner in the public interest, the said action cannot be faulted with simply because the Minister In-charge has taken into account not only other relevant matertals but atso the letter written by respondents 7 and 8. It needs to be nottced thatso long asthe action of thesixth respondent is not v'rtiated by mala fide, factual or legal, the action taken by him cannot be condemned aa arbitrary or illegal simply becauae the letter written by respondents 7 and 8 has atso gone into the decision-making. We say this because it is the prerogative of the Stateemployer to decidewho should serve where. It is not the vested right of any employee under the State to insist that he should be allowed to serveat a particular place or ina particular post. On the other hand, Itisthe liabllity of each and every publicservant to be transferred from onepost to another post, which is 49 equivalent and from one place to another place. If this right of the State Employer is meddled or interfered with by the Court lightly, we are afraid, thepublic adminjstration would collapse and woutd not be effective in sub- servtng the public Interest. That is why the Apex Court in umpteen number of decisionsand almostall ttae High Courts have circumscribed and highlighted on the limited scope of judiciat review and cautionect themselves riot to interfere with the transfer orders lightly unless weighty grounds are made as noted above. We do not find any of those grounds in thepresent case. It seems to us that this is a desperateattempt on the part of the petitioner to stick on tn a post ata particular place t6 serve his seff-interest. In the result, we dismiss the writ petition, however, with no costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Brajesh' H*a^':t-^. .^^^