AFf^ •<ri»0fl^-1 Patitioner Abhishek Kumar Dani. Son or Late Snri R.P. Dani, aged about 32 yeare, present'y posted ai Govt. Primarv Sohoof, Mohbhattha, S'ock Bemsitara, District Durg ?CG). Resporidsnts f. Versys 1) State of Chnsttisgam, tnrough fhe Secretar.', Qepartment or Schooi Education, D.K.S. Shawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Collsctor, Dwg, District Durg (CG). 3) Ths District Ecsuoation Ofricer, Eduoation District B<amst3rs. O'strlct Dura f'CG). The Bfook Education Ofnoer, BiocR Bemetara. District Durg (CG). FvS/?''"1" Qst i+' .lrt?-! t i'^'^iSa"' &l'^*i?^l£i''7/^S r»'f"i'^-'2& fr~lit*i'^i<£'^tT^ i+^n r1? i.?~^i's\ ItfVliL r'BLiLii/i i Ui it^i3i ^~\i U'^iW ^.i^J Uj U tS? ^iJt tSiltlUt-JUU Lff ti iUf<S/ 'bte Mr. SaUsh K. Aanihstri, J. Shri P.P. Sahu, counsei for the oetifioner. Shri Vlnay Harit, Dsputy Advocats General Advocste for the o t-a-f The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher &y Education Officer, Education District, Bemetara on 3-1-1W5. The petitioner was postsd ai Government Primary Schooi, Mohbhattha, Bloek Bemetara, Education District, Dura, at the rsievant time, v/hen order P/1), transferring the Detltioner from Educatiori dated 22-7-2007 (Annexure District, Bemetara to the Educaiion District, Durfl at Primaro Schoo!, Kotsra iock Daundilohra, was lector (Revenus), District Dura. '^. 2i Learned counsei aDoearing for the petitioner submi'ls that the transfer of the oetitioner from Education District, Bemetara to the Education District. Durg wouid prejudice and adversely affect the service condition of the oetitioner as the Detitioner is at Serial ?*-lo. 887 in the seniorit/ iist of Assistant Teachers as on 1-4-2006, maintained by the Education Distri; temetera. Learned counsei reiied on a Dromotion order datsd 2-8-2 (Annexure P/7) issued by th< is ciearty stated that the categories have been promoted upto ^iA^tn eacher. Learned counssl ser referred to an >per Uivisi dated 12-12-2C (Annexure P/'S) passed bv the District Educatlon Officer, Durg, whereln it is ciearly ststed that the Assistant Teachsrs appointed upto 8-9-1972 in generai category (unresen/ed category) have been considered for promotion to the post of Upper Division Tsacher fn Education District, Durg. Learned counsel further contends that iooking into the promotional avsnues in fhs Districi, Semetara as weii as 'm the District, Durg, whereto the petitioner has been transferred, the petitloner has been substantialiy affecied and prejudiced by •ihis transfer. Thus, the transfer order is bad and deserves to be quashed. To buttress his contention, Mr. Sahu, retied on a decision of this Court in the matter of Aaiekh Kumar Devta Vs. State of C.G. and others (Wrtt Petition No. 604 of 2005) and other connected maaers( 2005 (2) CGLJ 160). 3) Per contra, Shri Vinay Harit, learned aosearina for the State/resoondents submits that it is true that Education District, Durg, Assistent Teachers appointed upto 8-9-197: been considered for Dromotion to the post of Upper Division Teacher, wiil not substantiaily affect the career prospecte of the petitionsr. 'nerai in the have ^ ^r"""'^. '^,'% iEf ^..-._ '^ 3 I "^ ^-jyj %fs-y -3 iearned counsei for the parties, perused pieadlngs and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the career prospects of the petitionsr would substantiallv be affected and preiudiced, if the petitioner is transferred from Education District, Bemetara, where he v/as appolnied by the District Education Officer on Education District, Durg, Admittedly, in the Educatjon the Assistant Teachers appointed upto 1-8-1982 have been promoted to the post of Upper Divisson Teschers and in the Edueation District, Durg, the Assistant Teachers appointed upto 8-9-1972 have been promoted to the Dost of Upoer Division Teachers. ^- 5) The State/resDondenfs in their return filed on 26-02-2008 have stated as under: "That it is admitted that, thsre are two separate Education DjstricSs in Revenue District Dura and the seniority iist of bo'th the Education Districts are maintained separatesy. !t is aiso admitted thst, ths seniority of the petitioner vrouid ceriainiy effect, but, !t may possible that the position of the petitioner would changs and he will come above in the seniority jist." 6) This Court, whiie considerina the transfer from one District to other District in case of Gram Sahavak (Assis having considered various decisions of the Supreme Court held thst the transfer of an employee where the seniority is maintained at district wise, if on transfer to other district his sen'ice condjtions are afrected, is bad. 7) In the matter of Rajendra Roy Ys. Union of india 8 another Hon'bie the Suoreme Court has held as under: "!t is true that the order of trans iot of difficuities and disSocation of the concerned empioyess bu' order of transfer is nof iiable t< Uniess such order is passed onen causes a n the famiiv set uo t on that score tne s be struck down. or in 'AIR1993SC 1236 i-i- vioiation of the rules of service and guidelines for trarssfsr without any proper justification, the Court a transferabie posf an order of transfer 's a norma! consequence and perscnal difficuities are matters for consideration of the 1t" 8) )n the matter of K. Narayanan & others Vs State of Karnataka & others , Hon'bie the Supreme Court has he!d as under: "Any person enterini s( the service can justly feel continuance, prorRotion etc. squaiity sn executjve acuon Seniority is an incident of servlcs whic" cannot be eroded or curtaiied by a ruie 'which operates discrimsnately." 9) In ths matter of State of U.P. & another Vs. Siya Ram & another Hon'bSe ths Supreme Court hss heid as under: ¥- jovernment senant or employee of a public undertaking has any Segal right to be pcsted forever at any one particuiar place or piace of his choice since transfer of a particuiar employee appoinied to the ciass or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not oniy an incldent, but a condition of sewice, necessan,' too in pubiic interest and efficiency in the pubiic admip.istraiion. Unless an order of transfsr is shown to be an outcome of maia fide exercise or stafed to be in violaiion of statuton/ Drovisions prohibltiRg any such transfer, the courts or the tribunais normaliy cannot interfere with such orders as a matter 01 rouiine, as though they were appeiiate authorities substitutlng their own decision Tor that of the employer<'management, as •t nf aga'snst such orders passed in the interest of Admlnistraiive exiasncies of the service concemsd." in0) !n the mstter of & another HQn'bie the Supreme Court has held as under: "Additionally, it was pointsd out by ieamed counsei for the Union of Sndia that as indjcats '"AIR 1^94 SC 55 3 (2004) 7 SCC 405 4 (2004) 4 SCC 245 speciai leave pstition itseif there was r seniorlty or promotiona! which can be of any Soss of These are the one into in an appropr'ate proceeding, if at ai! there js any "The aiiegations mads against the respondsnts are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainiy unbecoming. Whether there was any misbe'haviour is a ouestion which can be aone into in a departmenta! proceeding. For She purposes of effecting a transfer, ths question of hoiding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehavlour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnscessaro and what is needed is the prima fade satisfaction of the authorit^ concemed on the contemporasy reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by iearned counsei Tor the rsspondents, of holding an eiaborate enquiiy is to be insisted upon the very purpose of traRSfemnc • an empioyee in pubiic interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether resooncents couid be transferred to a dlfferent .division is a matter for th®eniployer to necessities and the extent of soiutson for the probiems faced by the adminisiration. it is not for this Courtto direct one wav orthe other." 11) Applying weil settied prmcipie of iaw as stated above to the facts of the case whsre transfer of the oetitionsr from Educstlon DisSrict, Bemetara to Education District Durg, Vv'ouid substantialiy affeot hls sen/ice career Drosoects as he wouid get ORDortunity of considsration for Dromotion to the higher post Sater in the Education Dlstrict, Durg, when in Education Dlstrict BemeSara, he would havs an opportunlt^ of being considered for promotlon st an eariv dats. 12) In view of wei! settled principte of law and the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition Is aliov/ed. The impugned order dated 22-7-2007 (Annexure P/1) in resoect of the petitioner is auashed. No order asto costs. 'p. Raju Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge