INTHE HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHAT-BILASPUR WritPititionNo..f38.8..../05 Dated: /09/05 ^B.R. Markandey S/o LateShayam Lal Markanday Age-56years,WorkingasaHeadMaster in Middile School-SirryBlock-Gundardehi Distt.-Durg (C.G) ^/ ^^%^.^., ....... /•/? ..••^^••''Govt- of Chhattisgarh State r/s^^ _. . -. y'^o^' VERSES ^^0>( ^y <?<!5'>' ^' /2. Through - Secretary, Education Department D.K.S.Bhawan, G.E. Road Raipur(C.G.) Govt. of ChhattisgarhState Through - Collector - Durg District Education officer Durg Civil line Road Durg (C.G.) Block Education officer - Gundardehi Teh.- Gundardehi Distt. Durg (C.G.) Pititioner No.1 to4Respondent d3 y :., ' ; ^ , - Jg- 3 Writ Pitition under Artiele226and 227 of Constitution of Indiaifiad. roadwithsection19ofAdministrativeTribunalA6l.1985. *11*1<'M"^<TT^ " vgx^ -q l<<l»t|;®^PTS;f^R^ ...^.r...M^lQS~^206 an^TWR^i* nan'3n^T^>+iiq» wisfti3^(^fg^) S^ITSR^lfeT3II$9T +Wf<'><IlT)i<inVtt" fe'<3 •(Rf'^l^ ^3l)^tT.3II^?T 19/10/2005 Shri C.R. Sahu, leame(|l counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.S. Koshy, Dy.Ad|vocate General for the respondents on advance copy. Heard. The petitioiier, who i|s presently working on the post of Headiaaster in Govt. Middl^ School, Siny, Blocte Gundardehi aad has been transferred froni piny to Middle School, Rahud, Block Gundardehi has challenged tbe validity of his transfer order dated 31/8/2005. Leamed eounsel foif the petitioner subinits that the petitioner is a heart patie|a.t and fhe traasferred place of fhe petitiouer is at a distance ^)f 30 kins frpm. his present ptace of posting and K an interior pRace, therefore, fhe einergency inedical services niay not be availaltle to fhe petitioner at his transfei'rcd place ofpostmg. Except this ground, [leamed counsel for fhe petitioner has not pressed any ofher groufids in fhis writ petition. The Apex Court while yidgcilosa Sangathani -V-| dealmg wifh. the niatter of KeniSriya DtunoAtu- Praseua. Peuidey, 3004 AIS SCW 5563 Teferrias to th^ various decisions has observed vide para 4 as foU.ows: "Transfer which is fcu incidence of service is not to be iaterfered wifh. by th.e|Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or yitiated by inala&de or infracti.on of any presciibed norms of [prituciples govemidg jthe traiisfer (See Am6tml Kiinta Rim Vs. State ofOrrissa^. Unless fhe order SP/FS/2005-20,000 '^ L- «tl*tWl^TT^• yTsq '<11«1««,y-^l'H^td, Rril^y'< KJ/? ^l^tl^W^200 an^sTiraq? (^fjisi^) sn^T^rRi'ii* aairsn^CTBqrai s^arsf!'afStTsfi^i operative guidelines, tt| Dhion ofJndia ys. S.J to decide, Unless the o or is niade in. violation Courts should not ord Inida & others Vs. Jc ^'Rl<irn$Ili«i*tc)l"^'IS<<I)'(|ui'l^|<! ^aif^raii^?! of transfer is vitiated ti|y niala fide or is luade ia violation of e Court canuot iaferfere with it. (See A&fcas^. Who should be traasferred and posted where is a ^natter for the adiniuistrative authority aay one particul^ t-der of traasfer is vitiated by inala fide rf operatiye auy guideluies or rules the inarily iuterfere wifh it. In Unlon of nardan Debanath Ss another, it was observed as foUoyFS; "No Goveijainent servant or eniployee ofa public undertakiag has ^ay legal right to be posted forever at traiisfer of a partjcular eraployee appoiated to fhe class pr categoiy of ttansferable posts from one place to another is not c service, aecessary ir place or place of his cUoice siace jnly aa iacident, but a condition of too ia public interest aad efficieacy in fhe pubUc adiniai^tration. UTiless aa order of transfer is juteome of mala-fide exercise or stated to be in violation|of statutoiy provisions prohibiting any such traasfer, t4e Courts or the Tribunals normally caiuiot iaterfere T^itfa such orders as a matter of routiae, as though thejr were the appeUate aufhorities substituting thefr own decision for that of the einployee/inaaag^inent, as agamstsuch orders passed in the interest of concemed. Ttus ^osition was highlighfcd by this Court in Natioiicd Hyd[ Bhagwan.'1 idmiaistrative ex^encies of fhe service 'oelectric Power Corpn. Ltd Vs. Shri In the facts aiid petitioner is working on a i\ about any Kiala&de or aboi) fhe laatter of his trausfer,| im.pugned onler of transfer etrc Ircttmgtances of fhe case, since the I'ansferable post and he has not stated ft .iafnngenientof any statutoiy rule in I am not iucltaed to interfere in fhe sffhe petitioner. SP/FS/2005-20,000 it*ie>i ^Tra* yoq'<4i<iin«,ti)-ol'<i<i<»,^Rt«i'My\ . ^f ^^l^ »•••I. ••••• • ••••••• 9ii^?imR''ii<b craT3ii^?[<u*ii<b r-^ 3n'^5T<W'(yil361cs) The petition has no KIE However, the petitioD representation before fhe ground and if such a authority wiU consider and c law. [rit aad the same is disiiiissed. |er is at a liberty t6 ffle a detailed |compe.tent aufhority on his health rcjiresentation is filed, fhe competent [ispose bffhe same ia accordaaee with Sd/- ! SunilKumarSinha —— Judge , ;<i>i<i[n^li <ii*i»l"^fK'<3^sRtt5i<c ^gi^Hgii^st SP/FS/2005-20,000 ^ ^~