¥-• c /.-ET73 IN THE HIGH C-OTJRT OF TUDICATUKE AT (C.G.t W.P (m. No....^^3..^oo? PKi't'l'K >MKK S^t'"8 lc^R^'t' 1 ^^'?AF"t~l C''?i¥^ j=aC^=ii~ i—^^.^.d.^t^i-a.t.'- a—-•l - •= •-- L-L^L ij- ^^*; i ^—^^-•u-^ ,-] ^-iS. ..^••"".. '(•••''sy .-••' ^i€/ ^^' A.C --^ ^.-- rT / snotir ^s3 v£3tHrc: ^ / o ^Lr—r'^^^jZ.^ A.arf J:' ll^? JiJ- t^ i~^~f / ^Jt ]at° S-^-Sh.^^^.- \' .<?- •,../ 1^' „»' v R@POND@ITIS A ^^ ^^p^ /^u>', ^1 '«.^' r^T / ". ^>" '> .^^-•'"r-^s!., y •€'~^.yf't-'^. ff 5-.^~*^y Ji> 7 .yCf' .'^ l5^%J ^^--'I*'/^' ^K. '?^- -....."•"'.'^' .*</ ~i^ ^ .' ?fy •^•-.^ ' .-// Khaiyarain De"vangan at presenx •workine as a nsheries Inspector Ultice or the Uy. Uirector, risheries, Dui'g_, R/o of Adersh Na-gat' IJ-i^t-O- i^'C-\ Q \^---^-..f- RSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaiy Fisheries Departrrient, D. K_ s~-' T'il T^ - ''')~^-^~^^ •s-.^^a^ATSZT' K??it~>11t~- ii_ .t-?^ ir£»£.^jfc'-'V S-AA L *£-"^^LE. ^r Th-n-S, • \ '—-^s~t»^a J 1—^i.fsotiQt" > J?'i.sli.snss L-?s"osfti~ msnt. Js-aic'ut' Distrit Kaiour lr~r^\ ( -• Deputy Director, Fisheries Deoarttnent, Uura Uistt'ict Durg (CG) A-ssist^sit i-?it'SCLOl^= x'islist'iss Depat'tment Nat'ayanpur Disbrict BastariCG'. ^ Fisheries Deoart- m.ent, Utrice or Assistaiit UL^ . >< Director Fiesheries mAyanpw] Uistrict s^r'^A Y^U; ^ OF CONSTITUTION OF I' CERTIORARY AND DIM1CTIONS *- ?OR OTHER SUTTABLE WPJIS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wiit tition !S} No, 249 of'2007 Petitioner: Srikant Dewangan Vcrsus Respondents: State of CUiattisgarli & ofhera Yc !<.. ^- Sla^e Bench: Hon'bfc Mr. Justice Satish K. A^iihotri. SIui Vishnu Kostha, Advocate for tfac pctitioucr. Miss Sunita Jain, Panel lamyer for the respondents No, l to 4. None for the respondent No.5. ORDER ( Passed on ttiis 18tllday ofJamiaiy, 2007) The foUowiag order offhe Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotei, J. 1. The petitioner, in the instaat petition, assails fhe inipugned order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P/3) whereby the petitioner has been transferred fiiom Durg to Narayanpur, District- Baster. 2. The petitioner has impugned fhe order dated 14.11.2006 on fhe ground fhat the order is tainted wifh. malice as the same was passed to accommodate and adjust fhe respondeut No.5. The unpugiied order is contraiy to the transfer guidelines dated 26.5.2006 (Aniiexure P/4). The transfer order is arbitraiy, unjustified, unreasonable aud wifhout pubUc interest or adnuiustrative exigency. 3. Shri Vishnu Kosfha, leanied coiuisel appearing for fhe petitioner submits fhat the impugaed oider is bad ui !aw, arbitraiy, unreasonable and it has beeu. passed during nud session. The daughter of the petitioner Miss Nansi Dewangan is studying in c1ass-12th, she has to face boanl examination in this year anr) tlie ¥- son of the petitioner master Palas Dewangan is studyiag in class 8th at Diirg. As siifh, the imp^igned transfer onler be qnasfied. 4. Miss Sunita Jain, leamed Paiiel Lawyer, appearing for fhe respondents No. l to 4 on fhe coatraiy submitted fhat the order passed was due to the admitustrative exigency in public interest and the transfer order contains not oiily fhe naines of petitioner and rcspondeat No.5 but by the said transfer order, placement of six more persons were efiFected. Learaed counsel further submitted fhat the transfer guidelines dated 26.5.2006 clearly provides for transfer of employee in cooidination of the Ctuef Minister fhrough the Chicf Secretaty. In the present case the iinpugned order was passed in coordmation wifh fhe Chief Minister as is evident from the impugned order itself which was endoraed to fhe Secretary to the ChiefMinister. 5. Itwas further contended tfaat the avennent offhe petitioner to the effect that the feaasfer order was passed in exercise ofthe powers tainted with malafide, malice, unreasonableness, contraiy to the transfer guidelines is without any baste as fhere is no inaterial to substantiate the averments except the bald statements made in the petition. 6. Haviug heard leamed coitnsel for fhe parties aad havmg perused the documents annexed fhereto, it is evident fhat ftie petitioner has failed to establish any malafide or matice against the respondents. The transfer order was passed due to administTative ex%ency in the public interest Therc is no violation of the transfer guidelm.es dated 26.5.%)06 which clearly provides for tiansfer of an employee in coonlinatioa with fhe Chief Minister. The present impugned order is bearmg endorsement to the Secretary to the Chief Minister as required under fhe transfer guidelines. Thus, there is ao breach oftbe transfer guidelmes. 7. I have examined fhe facts of tfae case. The allegations, stated above, have not been established ia the facts of the case. The Suprcme Court m fhe Case of Kendrlya Vidyalaya San^ithan Vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others1 has observed as ¥- under:- "4. Trsmsfer which is an incideace of service is not to be mterfered witfa by coiirts luiless it is shown to be clearfy arbitraiy or visited by mala fide or iafraction of any prescribed nonns of princg)Ies goveraiitg (he transfer (sec Abani Kanta Ray v. State ofOrissa'. unless tfae order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in violation of operatiye guidelines, the court caunot iaterfere with it (see Union of India v. S.L. Abbas2), Who shoidd be traiisferred aad posted where is a matter for the admmistrative aufhority to decide. Unless the order of traasfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of aay operative guidelines or rules the courts should not oidinarily iuterfere wifh it !n Union of India v. Janaidhan Debauatti3 it was observed as foDows : (SCC p. 250, para 9) ^No goveniment servant or employee of a pubUc undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice siace toaasfer of a particular employee appouited to fhe class or category of traasfeiable posts from one place to ano&er is not onty au incident, bnt a condition of service, necessaiy too in putolic interest and efficiency in fhe public administiation. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outeome of mala fide gxercise or stated to be m violation of statutoiy provisions prohibiting aay such transfer, fhe courts or fhe tribimals normalty cannot inteifere with such orders as a mater of roiitme, as fhough tfaey were fhe appeBate authorities substituting their awn decision for that of tfae ^ employer/maaageinent, as agaiust such orders passed in the iuterest of admiaistratwe exigencies of the service conceraed. This position was highlighted by fhis Court ia National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwaa4.* 9. It is well settled principle of law fhat transfer is an incident of service and it is for the einployer to decide as to where a particular ofificer/employee be posted keepuig in view pubUc interest as weU as admmistrative ex^ency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the teansfer matter and fhis Court cau iaterfere only iu tihie case of proved malafide, aon-competence of aufhority passing fhe transfer order aud transfer order not being in couformity with the rules aud regulations. The petitioaer/eniployee cannot be permitted to rcmaiu at one place, forever, by Court orders. 10. The petitioner has not made out any case for interference by fhis Court in fhe preaent trausfer. 11. For the reasons and as a result this petitiou is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, ia the facts of the case when fhe wards offfae petitioner are studying at Durg, it is directed that the petitioner be not disturbed for a period of thnee nionths fixim. tile present place ofposting i.e. Durg. (2004 (12) SCC 299)i Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur