7 2) 4) HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILA$P§WRU Writ Petition LS) No.230 of 2908 Uma Shankar Chaturvedi, Sio. Shri R3. Chaturvadi, aged absut 4? years, presentiy posted as Assistant, Foreman (E & M) $Etf3L Dipka area, Distriét Korba, presentiy residirug ai; MQ 1316, Pragaii Nagar SEQL Dipka Area, District Korba, Chhattisgaa'f'x. Egrsus Union of india through the $ecretary, Ministw cf CsaL Shastfi Bhawan. Ne _ Deihi. ‘ South Eastern Coameids Ltd“ i subsidiary Coal Campany a! Caa! Mdia ‘ Ltd, having §ts registered office at $eepat ". Road, Biias'pur, (Chhattisgarh) through iis Chairman—cum—Managing Director € Deputy Generai Manager (Manpower),§ ‘SECL, Dipka Area, District Kerbayi Chhattisgarh. i eputy Chief Personai Manager! SE61»; ipka Area, District Korba, Chhaitisgarh. ; 5) Mines Manager, (Effice of Deputy Genera Manager; Dhaka Extensicn,_’g Disirict Korba, Ch'nttisgarh. (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of indie) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. é'ErT-"Knkirifé “i533" 'Eéiiriééi 'rér'ih'é' indialreepondent No.1 . ; ri Praveen Das, c uneeiferthe reepcndents N0. 2 ta 5. 3 we, iiéiiiiéfrié'i‘”“ Me. Sharmiia Singhai, Asst. Scimitar Generai for Union 0f Sh fiieeeni’i'” w nAL eaeeR (Passed an this 19‘“ day of August, 20G8 Learned counsei appearing for the peti’rioner submits theft the impugned‘oroers dated 19-12-2007 (Annexure Fri) and 24—12-200 (Annexure PI2) have been passed on account of maia tide exercise of dower > w A . D D ! E e 7 . i I v -31 whether the respondents co aid be transferred t0 a different division is a mart r for the empicyer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of oiution for» the problems faced by the administration”. in the matter of State of UP a d annther Vs. $iya Ram and 4)? ‘ r ’i i another2 the Hon bie Supreme Court heid es under i “No {Eavemment se Fm or empioyee of a pubirc L, dertek'r'g has any gal right to be posted forever at any one partrcuiar piece or piece of his ehoice Since transfer of a particuiar employee appomted to the crass or category of transferabie posts from one oiace to other is not only an mordent but a condition of sewage necessary too in pubirc interest and effcrency in the pubiic administration Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of maia fide exercise or stated to be in vioiation of ‘ statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunais normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appeiiate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employerimanagement, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative eXxgenoes of the ervrce concerned This positron was hrgf‘iignted by this Court in Nationai Hydroeiectrro Power Corpn Ltd v Shn Bhegwan The above position was recently highiighted in Union of India v Janardhan Debanath It has to be noted that the High Court proceeded on the basis as if the transfer was connected With the deoartmentai proceedings There was not an iota of materiai to arrive at the conciusion. No maia tides couid be attributed as the order was purely on administrative grounds and in public interest“ 5) in the matter of state of UP. and others Vs. Gohardhan Lai3§the Supreme Court held as undef: “A challenoe to an order of ttansfer shoui normaiiy be esohewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunais as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the nioeties of the adrriinistrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for thereason that courts or tribunais canno substitute their own decisions in the matter of i transfer for that of competent authorities of the state and even ailegations of mala f‘des when made must r2004) r SCL 40> 3 (2004) ti soc 402 l i d K t _L1, be such as to inspire confidence in the caurt or are based on concrete mate:§a!s a .d ought not te be enterwinegi on the mere m‘Iking of it or. an consideration borne out of con; ctures or surmrses and except for strong and can incing reasons, n0 interference Gourd ordinariiy be made with an order ef transfer.” 6)‘ Keeping in~ View the fact that a de artmentai enquiry is pending I e coneideration at. Dipika Area, District Korba a1nd chiidren of the petitioner ar i aiSoi pursuing their studies in Korba, the reependent authorities may consider i petitioner’s appiication/representation, if aiiy, to post him at Korba, in accordance with iaw and on its own merit, 7) ' With the aforesaid observations this writ petition stands disposed ot. N rder asto osts. i Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri " Judge t“; Raiu’ o o c