1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONS) No. é: I§§ OF 2008 PETITIONER: Dayaram Suryawanshi, Aged About- 55 Years, S / o-Shri Thanwar Ram Suryawanshi, Occupation— Assistant Gram Panchayat Officer, QDvA .... . Gram Panchayat— Batera, Janpad Panchayat— Dondilohara, Distt.—Durg (C.G.) VERSUS I RESPONDENT (S): 1(State of Chhattisgarh Through it’s Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K. S. Bhawan Raipur / (co) 2. Janpad' Panchayat- Dondilohara, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, / . Distt.-Durg (C.G.) 3. Chief Electoral Officer, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Q . . QFK H§GH CGUR? 9F CHHA?TE$GARH : BILASPUR ' ’ WRIT PETiTiGN {93$ Na 6’155 i}? 2G{}8 bavaram Suryawanshi ‘aie?sas State 6f Chhaitasgam & Cihers RE$§$NDENT {Writ getmon under Articze 228 sf we Canstim‘iion of mdia‘a SingEe $ei'ich : Ham‘bEe Shy} Saiis‘a a< Agn'a‘nsi’rL .3. Evesem :— Sm; Vinay Pandeyg counsei far ihe petmcner. Shri A.V. Siidhar, Panei Lawyer f6? ihe State“ $h?i AS. Kachhawaha, counsei far the yéspendent No.2 ORaER «BRAD: {Fassed an tms 27“ day of amber, 2009) “ij; Wiih the cansent of #eamed ccunsei appearing far the pames, €he p iiiian is heard finaiiy. The pei§tienea by i‘nis peéiiisa‘ impugns ihe smea’ {med 3&-6-2068 {Annexure — PM) gasseé by ‘zhe Add§i§ma3 $ecre€ary, Gwemmem 0f Chhattisgarh! Dagsafiment cf F’anchayaé and Rum: E Beveiogamerxi, whereby tha petitioner has beer} ‘tiangferreé fmm ; mg to Baséaa" Tiwe paitiener chagienges me impugraeci erder ma§n5y an the grwn thai €he petit§onen bemg a ciass m empmyae, was awointed' at a particuiar district His senioriiy is maintameni d§siz§ci-wise. The next cementmn cf the §et§tioner is mat in case o? “ms :ansfe? frem ene d§sirict t9 o‘iher disérict his senéeyiiy w§§i b3 affected causing prejudice ta the peiiiioeer. Thus,,%he Hemmer t 5 omer is bad and deserves ta be quaeeed. 0n €he other hand, {earned counsei fa? the Steie eaemiie he; in t ‘zhere is he moh‘aeitbn on transfer mm ene we‘mct t0 ether eistric‘i» The pest of Aseisiem (Bram Paecheyei Gfker is a cévi: pee; emd iyansfembie €wm ene dis‘ariet i9 e‘mex" dismct and ‘ihek semerifcy wEi§ net be a§ected. 53 i have heard §eamed c0unse§ appeaysng fa! ihe pamee, perused fne pieedirags and the éecumenie appended ‘ahereio. 3i is evidem ‘3; that there is no meta tide exercise 9f pewer in passing the impugned )In “V KS fié' prohrbifien err irarrsfer from one a‘isrric‘; to other éietricr. The crass iii empioyees appointed ea the district basis eeri be traraeferred outside tire district in tire interest of tire pubiic service em} on adminismiéve grounais. §t is a§se adméiied mat i‘nough the seniority is maintamed at dismat §eve§, howevey, iheir seniority! is not disturbed on iran3fer mm ane disiréct §:o the other disirict. in Rejendre Rey Vs. Unien er’ indie & another° the Supreme Cam has heid as Lmder : transfer oyder‘ it is admtte fac:i thai ihere “3t is irue §hat the order c tfansfe.’ after: causes a iot cf diffésuities and dismcatiot} Vin ‘ihe famiiy set up of the cancerned emmoyees ism: an iha$ 5mm the swat cf '1iransfer is mt iiabée ‘go be s‘truck dawn. I i umess‘suah ewe? §s saassad maia fade cr §n v§e§ai§m 0f the ru§e$ of service am? gmdeiines for transfer withcui aray reaper g'Lretirécation, the Court end the Trrbunai shouid mi interfere wirrr the crder a? irensfer. m a transferable post an order of iranefer is a. normai consequence ane perscnei difficuirres are matters for eansideration or” the department.” ateke 8; e1. .7) én K. were anerr it. Supreme Court has heid as under: “Any person entering the service cen jus‘r‘ry reek eecure of aquarit‘y‘ Ln commence; pramciéon ere. Any exeeuérve aetion vieiating it""Car‘i‘net‘be upheld. Sseniority is an incident of eervice which cannot be eroded or curtaiied by a ruie Whrch opereies discrrmrnezeiy.” a) in state er ura. e another Vs. siya Ram e anathee the $uereme Court has herd as under: I Are wee sc r236 - NR r994 sc 55 ”No goverrrmerrt servant or emptcyee er e eubtic errdertaktrrg has any aegai right to be meted forever at any Cree perticuier etace er piece of hie cheéce eiece treesfer of a perimeter empioyee appotrrted tethe cteee or categorv or transferebte posts tram one erase to other ts not enty an tncident, but a condétéorr cf service, necessary toe §n peb§§c interest and efmierzcy in the eubiic ’) A (2004) 7 sec 405 3U drinisqatim U'iges an en‘éa Gf iransfar a anown i0 be an cmc rre o? maia fide exewxse a; sated is be in V§Gkatien a? stammrv arovisiens pmmbmng any such t¥§ms§ea €he cams 9r the tribunaSS n5;ma%§y camo’t mterEere wi‘m such cadets as a mama: 0f «amine: as theug’n they were apge§§ate am asrities substitutmg :‘wek awn decision for ihat af ihe empieywi management, as against such arders gassed in ihe imaresi af Acimmistrative exigencies of the sewice cancemec? Janardhan Behaaath & in Union o? Endia & ethers Va gnetheri the Sgpreme Seurt has heid a5 under: "£\ddit§onaiiv. ii was aoiated out bv iearred counsel f0} the Uréion of India, thai ‘as §ndicated m the specia§ ieave pemion itseif tame wa$ m question a? any 3955 of senécyity or pmmctionai pmspeais. These ai'e the asoects wh§ch can be gene into in an appropriate proceeding,'§f at a3! there is any adverse orde.’ §n the matter af sen§or§iy a! prometicn. ‘fhe a§ieaat§cns made en‘s: the resgondents aye of serious nature, and the senduc’t aaributed is certainly unbeceming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a qJestion whici" can ‘ee gone iete it: e eepartmewtm ytoceeeing. Fez the purpeses of iioidérig e ectmg an reeqtiiry a transfei' to fine out the wiiether questiee there of was misbehavieur er conduct unbecoming 0i an emeieyee is umeceesaiy and what is needed is the grime fame catisiaction er the authci'ity concemed en the contemgae'eiy reports abeut the eccurrenee compieieee oi and if the requirement, as submitted by ieamed ceurisei for the responderits, ef hoidine an eiaborate emuiry is ta be insisted upon the very: purpose oi transferring an emeieyee iri pubiic interest er exiaencies of administratien t0 erifer aeeerum and erisure probity [mutt get f" 'strated "Pie quesuon whether respondente couid be transferred te a different divisien is a matter fer the empioyer to consider depending upon the admieistrative necessities; and the extent at soiutiori for the emblems faced ey the edministratieri. it is not fer this Ceurt to direct one way or the other.” 4 r2004) 4 scc 245 & w m v§ew a? faregaing, it i3 ciear iha£ én the preserai caSe, the senier’sty of the pei§iianer maéntaine& at éistfmt §evel MEI mi be disiu§bed after %ransferring mm. Tha petitianer has wither na fight t0 remain pasta a€ a pamcuiar distmé and there %s m3 cha§§enge on the ground of maia fide or viciaion (3f may statute, reguiaticn? we, etc. 1.1g This Cami in Aaiekh Kama? Davia vs. Staie cf C‘G. 8: Gihers5 aw Gihef connected mégi‘ters heié that “$6 Cams shom‘a n6? sarbsfifuz‘e decisions of fhe managemer;f in case cf framfes’ made 9n the ground of aéwinisa‘reéwe exigemy and if; puélic :‘m‘emsl, except in the case of praved maiafide if; exsrcise oi“ got-wars ar vicfaéiog cf siafufcry pmvisicsa and :‘haf is £9? fhe wse g?) f£?e wesem mafiefs.” ,a2) Qne ef the §ei§t§aners §n ‘me march ca5$s of 5ka§akh mamas“ Eevta (sups'a‘ {ask up the magtex' "so éhe Supfeme Quirk by way 0f S§eciai Leaw Petit§on The Supreme Court d§smisssc§ the $pac§a§ Leave Petition {CW1} Ne.13??3 af 2G95 {Shyawai Chatwhari vs. Siaie a? ahhattiegarh $4 Steam), uehwaing the dec§s€eri , easeed by ‘ihis Seam in Aaiekh “,‘(umaf Eevga {were} anrj ether canneciee‘ metiere an $ 2h Juiy, 2&93 For ihe reasens staied hereinabeve. ihe wg'i": eetitien i5 dismissed. No awe? eete ccsie. ;a“ {Eowri Sd/— 3Satish K. Agnihotri ' Judge