^ ^\ -^. ^' SB-HC—JS 'TST •^WIW<i, SSTll'M'IS, fq<11'M'J,< ^ WNyiT sh*ll<<» 31I^TTI^? (1°lid<<<iEI) an^s w R-II+ 'ffSjT 3T?^T »>*1 "ETITIONER -V RESPONDEN7S inaie Bench: Hon'ote Sn" Bharat Ra'put, counsel for th^ hssra. !ne Detiiioner. wno is a continai presentiy posted at Raigarh. He has bee| 27-12-2008 by respondeni: No.1. The order on the oround that the oetitioner is fie petitioner is aiso sufferinci from Jauns con~Disis OSQ resr. After hearina learned counsei for around pn whlch the petitioner seeks cai <=ti!^C1<^'l 411*l?lt' ^f t^T3t <f^|^T< ^i'aifim 311^1 Manoj Kumar Shrivsstava. S/o Lste R.P. Shrivastava, Aged about 46 years, R/o °alace Road Chobey Street Opposite: Pinlw Cvcie Stcre, Chandni Chowk p^i^^r^ r)l9~rir-t P??ip?;!rh (^-C^^ '—•^y—- - •; —---..—- - -•.^.^y^. . . ^ ^. ~v ^ rsus- CQrcor3t!on Liniltsd, thrDUOh. Its Genei'al Manager, Chhattisgarh State CMI SuDpiier Corooration L'mited. Kschaharl Ch^wk. Bal Ashrsm Psrishgr iviUKHy^iSys; Ksipur ('"''^} The Manaaina Director. Cnhatt'saarh Stats Civi! SuspHer Corporation L'mited, Kachshari Chowk, 3ai Ashram Parishsr. Mukhvalava, Raiour (CG) The District Manaaer. Chhatt;sciarh Stste Clvll Supr?!lsr CorcQrstlon Llmltsd, Opposite Natwar Compiex, Mithhumuda, Raigam (CG) >hri Dhirendra IVIEshra. J. Detitioner. tncv Daid dnver under resoondent No.'". is h transferred to Dantewada vide order dated ^etitloner has imDuaned the above transfer ^uffering from Dlabetes vrhereas, the wlfe of (ice and she has been advised one montn's [the Detifioner. ! am of the ooinion that the leeliation of his transfer cannot be a cround :s!at^ '% :fs~^, 1 '^.. ^ ~\ ^ ^J3! ^/ ®S&'XI-HC—78 75?'AII'illCl':1,®Ttl'H'IS,fsKII'My wqcn 'siiHKh •ff^200 311^1'q^f? (iyf-l«l<^) SiI^I Vf R-li* '(CT sn^r s»»^iq» ?^I1W flf^fl <tf)^1 -^- for interterence in the matter of transfel transfer is not oniv an incidence of se| Government sen/ant or emDiOvee of ^ organization 'has any lega! right to be pcj ;hoice. The Court should ordinarily iurlsdiction of the State in the matters ofI of 'ndia^unlcssthe Couit finds tha* eltherl o'ohiibit such transfer, or thaf the authoritil comoetent authority to DSSS such orders. with the transfer order un^ess ttie transfer violation of any operative gLiideiinss o' ths In view ofthe above setiled prino]i: i'lterference m this Court [n. exercise ^•OnSTI'-'JTlOH OT ^ 0!S ]n THG HT10UCHSQ .1.; .'". ^*.'^ r^.¥'.'^"^r*^ 5\ ^ ' ""^ ^ <^J^Ti-^^/^,v^ • ;^' f^^-^y^\t£> "^UUi^r iM;^\ s.i iy .J^UliUM'iti UjteUllSteWJ. *i<ifd41-i ^wS 4 'fe^zt 'ri^re^R ^aiRnaii^T of an empioyee, ss it is settled iaw that jvice but also a oondition of service. No Public Undertaking or employee of any jsted at any partioular p!aoe or plsce of his hot interfere in exercise of disc'etionan/ tansfer undsr Articie 226 of the Constitu;!cn tie order is ma!afide or that the service rules fcs, who issued the transfer orders, were not The Courts shouid ordinarilv not 'nterfere lorder is issued arbitrariiv or ma!aride!v or:in ruissaovemina thetransfer. |ie of law, 1 am ofthe visw that ~o G''OL;nc' fo' of iLirisd;ction unaer Artlcic 226 cf: the tnsfer order of the petitioner is made out. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge iS