^•s- an^r^iift'ira? ^Bn sn^r 9t>^iof> c ;^'3- ~S^si~:Wv^, ®ti1y<is,facil'Hy tfm?ii vKW«h ^^Q,.g^^K•^200 3Ti^?r Tra^r (ij'if^'^f) TOIWHftaflI^T PETITiONER: RESPONDENTS: -Ver| 11 (WritPetition underArtic Singje Bench: Hotr' 14-10-2008:- ' Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, coi| Shri Arun Sao, Goyt. Adv6c4 The petitioheFhas impugnetf passed by respondent No.1 where| 'inspector in the Office of Co!lector| the ofRee of Assistant Labour , Learned couns.el for the pelf /-beeri passed, ..malafidely. with: a ..%4g ^ii<ifa<^'t *fw<Tif ^f ^lst <r<ii<^R ^ sifiiii gi)%?r iUS- Manish Netam, son of Late P.L. Netam, aged about 46 years, Occupation Labour inspector, Presentiy posted in the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur and attached in the office of Coiiector, Dhamtari, residenS of G-4; Civil Lines, Dhamtari (CG) . State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Department of Labour, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 2[ The Assistant Labour CommissiQner, Raipur. 3| Smt. Uijawala Bhoi, wife &f not tapw to the petitioner, Labpur ^((b-lnspector in the offiee ofl.Assistant ;Labour Gommissioner.Dufgi |]i : . |Si226oftheConstitutionof^lndia);j - 'ttle Shri Dhirendra Mishra. J. InselJorthe petitioner. itefortheState. ; the order dated 25-9-2008 (Annexyre-P/1) [sy the petitioner, who is working eis Labour. District Dhamtari, has been transferrecl to Comijiissioner, Durg on administrative ground. ftioner submitted that the instant;|order has ^;iac;commodate^res@ondSrilJ'lo.3,.AKho ^ m IBSJ -HG—78 .^ffl^I •¥1^R; "•gfetl 3lj^lst>yi+ iil Barv'e ^^ ^ST "41''<ld'4, Sitil'M'IS, fs«'ll'Hy *ll*1Cftl tl>W«»» •WI, 200 3I^T 'T^; ('Tlf^^I) Bfinw ^ftef fli^i thle has been transferred ih his place vioiation of the fransfer policy of because of transfer in the mid s| adveFselyaffected. Heard learned counsel for it is settled law that transferl a condition of service. No Undertaking has any legai right to his choice. The Court shoulc) discretlonary jurisdiction ofthe 226 of the Constitution of Intfia un| maialide orlthat the service rules ri who issued the transfer orders, orders. The Courts shouidordinarii the transfer order is issyed pperative guidelines or the rujes ao] Thus, having regard t6 the ^ tp be no ground for interference b^ Article 226Iof the Constitutjort of petitioner. Accordingly, (he petitlon| <>n !he arbitari 'ibl^cil'ill'l 'W^ ^f 1^3t^f^gTC ^'sifwTan^T her ownexpenses. in the mid session in State Government. !t was argued that sssion studies of his daughters would be petitioner on admission. |is not onlyan incidence Qfservice butaiso Gov^rnment senjrant or empioyee of a PubiJc i|>e posted at any particular place or piace of ordinariiy not interfere in exercise of Sttte in the matters of transfer under Article less the Cburt finds that either the order fs (•ohibit such transfer, orthatthe authorities, w|ere not competent authority to pass such |y not interfere with the transfer order unless arbitt'ariiy Qrimalafidely or !n vfolation of any t^rhingthe transfer. ; jbove settled principle pf faw, there appears j' thls Court in exercise ;o{ jurisdiction under Iticiia irr the impugnecl^transfei' :order of the |is dismissed at the admissiori stage ltse!f. Sd/- DhirendraMishra