?no£^. i .,?,,0,...- SW^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRITPETITION No.^3^)-/ 2005 PETITIONER : ^ Aseem Kumar Mishra, aged ,^^\rS about 50 years,. S/o. Late •x oy \0^^ / Shri B.L.Mishra, Accounts ^ ^)4^' , ' ——.—^— :7.'<<^v/'- Asstt. Grade-I, District ^e^V7 Treasurl^r Durg, R/o. ^.^\^' . . --„ _.^A" - - - . ^r/y\^ H.No.2i75; Jawahar Nagar, 0<""- ^' .,^'t' Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS .<^. ,^ ^' 0?' -/.91 (K' ^"' ^.^ '^^" •^^\p ^. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Finance Department, "Mantralaya??, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). / 2. Director, Accounts, Treasuries & Pension, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). ^3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasuries & Pension 'Gha^di Chowk" Raipur (C.G.): WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS, PROHIBITIQN AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. XI-HC-78 *11*1«1^w^ ^TwT 'r«i«irt<4, tp-^Xt-K?, ptwitl^ _,_W. P No 4-^^^/^^lr ^F^200 an^fTwR^i^ ^raffw^^TaRRF 4i v 3TI^?T q^P (llclij<sl<^) g^R'JTWKif&a 31T^^T 06.10.2005 ShriR.N. Jha, counsel f< Shsi Vivek Sharma, coti|iisel 'or the petitioner. for tiie State ou advance copy. Heard. peti1|ion By way ofthis-writ Constitution of Iiidia, fhe pe1 ieipugned order dated 4.8.: petitioner who was promote| Grade-I fironi fhe post of A| traiisferred froin Durg to Raipj It is state.d by leanied| petitiouer was workuig at'Duit not disputed ui this case fha( traasferable 'post The Apex Cozii-t whUe -V- refeiTuig to tlie para 4 as foUows: "Trausfer which is an| iiiterfered with. by ti.ie C( ai'bitrary or vitiated prescribed norms of pi Fs, of trarisfer is vitiated b^ operative guidelhies/ fhej UMon MSndia Vs, S.L\ m^tter aiicl posted where is a to decide, Unless tlie order or is niade ia violation ol Comts should not ordii|Laiily cbl4fc641^ *11^^Tt"f^G^ xRi^ix ^^Rl^3TT^^T ffled iinder Article 226/227 oftiie itioner has cliallenged the legality of ^005 (Aniiexure-P/1) by which tiie to tlie post of Accouut Assistaat 'count Assistaat Grade-II has been ar. • . . . .- counsel for the petitioner that the •g siiice last inore fh.aii 25 years. It is tlie'post held by the .petitioner is'a lealiiig witli the m.atter of /adous decisions. lias- observed vide mcidence of service. is iiot .to be ^urts unless it is shown to be cleaiiy ^y inalafide or iafraction of aiiy |iEiciple->goveniHig the traiisfer (See ofOrrissc^. Uiiless.tlie order mala fide or is made in violatiou of Court cannot uiterfere with it (See Who shoidd be traasfeiTed for the aclinuiistrative authority oftransfer is vitiated by niala fide operative airy guideliiies or rules fhe iiiterfere with it. In Uni^n @f XI-HC-78 «11H<?)1^*IT^ ^wf^TraT?'^, ty-alwKp, RIC^KI^ ^ .M,.P..^.....4:3.M:/^^ 'ON aii^?T q=ra»(^tgcRs) 3n^?T^TRli<p wffw^ffswra? .-^ ?TcffW ^Rd 3(T^^T -^-1 ^thcrs VB. & it was observed as foUows: "No. Govenim.entl undertaking has any one particular| traiisfer of a pailic^ or category of aiiofher is uot , sendce,. necessar}r 't the public shown to be aa oui to be iti violation oi such traiisfer, fhe caiinot isiterfere though fhey ai^y ois^y admuiisltration as substitutbig theit' employee/ maiiagei4 io. ttie iaterest of concemed. This iii National Hydro\ Bhagwan." The tran.sfer is aii iacid on fhe traiisferable post can c| Considermg fhe facts) particiilarly .consideriiig 'tlie beeii traiisfen'ed froia Durg .malafides or violation of any tiiis case, I aoi of the opinion tlie order requh'es io.terferenc^ The petition is dismisse^ cpi<<fcl)<TI<i +ii<icoT^'f^^l <<Ri^ix ^ari^TW^n servaiit or employee of a piiblic legal right to be posted forever at place or place of his choice since |ilai\employee appointed to fhe class tTa|asferable posts from one place to aa uicident, but a condition of |)G in public iaterest and efficiency in Unless aii order of traasfer is 1-coBie pf rnala-fide exercise or stated statutory provisions prohibitiag any Courts or tlie Tribunals noi'aially witb such orders as a matter of routiae, were tlie appeUate authorities own decision for tliat of fhe ^ei4ent, as agabist such orders passed ac^niin.istrative exigencies oftiie sei'vice po|>ition was highUghted by this Court >lectric Power Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Shri tb |ence of service ancl nobody workiag |ami for postiag at a partictilar place. aiid circunistaiices of the case, lircumstan.ee fhat tiie petitioner has Raipur after lapse of 25 years and ^tatutoiy nile has been attributed iri piat present is not a fit case. ia which by -this Court. at fhis stage. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ ^J^ ^ ^/