A^R, Ot^f^ HISH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WritPetiUon(S) No. 5554 of 2007 Petitioner Vinod Kumar Singh, Sto. Shri Vishal Singh, aged about 49 years, occupation: Principal Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Jashpur Nagar, Distt. Jashpur (CG). Resfiondents Versys 1) State of Chhattisgarh through the Avar Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, D.KS. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Director. Deoartment of Tribal Welfare, Chhaffisgarh Govemmsrrt, Raipur, Dist,. Raipur (CG). 3) The Asst. Commissioner, Tribal Welfara Department, Dsstt. Jashpur (CG). 4) Ku. Kamla Kerkatta, aged about 44 yeare, Principal Model Higher Secondary School, Jashpur Nagar, Kstt. Jashpur (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the ConsUution of India.) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri A.S. Rajpur.counselforlhepetitfonsr. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri A.K. Prasad and Shri M.K, Sinha, eounsel for the rsspondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4.44008) The petitioner impugns the validity of the transfer order dated 31-8- 2007 (Annexure P/7) passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner along with 31 more employees was transferred. The petttioner was transferred from Governraent Boys Higher Secondary School, Jashpur Nagar, Distt. Jashpur to Government Higher Secondary Schooi, Kudmura, Distt. Korba(CG). 'w^g <^0 2) The tecte, in nulshell, are ttisd the petttionw was posted as Prirwifat, Government Boys Higher Swondary Schooi, Jashpur Nagar, Dist. Jashpur. He was recently promoted to the post of Serrior Principat on 29-6-2007 (Annexure P/2) and continued at the same place. Thereafter, the impugned order transferring the petitioner from Govemment Boys Higher Secondary School, Jashpur Nagar, Distt. Jashpur to Government Higher Sacondary School, Kudmura, Distt. Korba (CG) was passed. 3) Leamed counsel appaaring forthe pet'rttoner submtethatthe impuyied transfer order in respecl of the petitioner te bad on tha ground that it is mala fide exercise of power and the impugned order has been passed to accommodate the respondent No.4, who is also working as Prineipel in Model Higher Secondary School, Jashpur Nagar, Distt. Jashpur. 4) The petitioner has neither flled any decument nor made any specific averment in respect ot the allegation of mala fide exereise of power, except fhe self-same statement that on potitical bias, this fransfer order has been passed. With regard to tte fact that the respondent No.4 is posted at Jashpur Nagar, thereafter, he could not have been posted at other schools, deseroes to be dismissed on the simple ground that (t is not fca- fte smpioyee to point out the place where the employee is to work. tt is for the employer to decicte as to where a particular officer/eraployee be posted keeping in vlew pubite interest as well as administrative exigency. - 5) !n ttie matter of E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamit Naduand another, the Supreme Court observed as under: "88.... with the vast muttitudinous activjties in which a modem State is engaged, there are bound to be some posts which require for adequate discharge of their functions, high degree of inteliect aid spedalized experience. It is always adifRcuH" probteni 1974(4}SCC3 for the Govemment to find suitabte officers for such specialized posls. There are not ordinarily many officers who answer the requirements of such specialized posts and the cheice with the Govemment is very timited and this choice becomes all the more difficult, because some of these posts, though important and having onerous responsibitities, do not carry wide executivs pov/ers and officers may not, therefore, generally be willing to be to'ansferred to those poste. The G6vernment has in the circumstances to make the best possible choice ft can, keeping in wew the larger interests of the administration. When, in exercise of this choice, the Government transfers an officer from one post to another, the officer may feel unhappy because ttse new post does not gh/e him the same amplitude of powers which he had while holding the old post. But ttiat does not make the transfer arbitrary. So tong as the transfer ismade on account of the ewgencies of administration and is not from a higher post to a lower post with discriminatDry preference of a junior for the higher post, it would be valid and not open to ateck underArticie 14and 1S. 92. We must not also overlook that Uie burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges 'rt. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility....... in this contsxt it may be noted that top administrators are often raquired to do acts which affect other adversely but which are necessary in the execution of their duties. These acte may iend ttiemselves to misconstruction and suspicion as to the bona fides of their adhor when the full facts and surrounciingciroumstanees are not known. The Court wouid, therefore, be slow to dcaw dubious inference from incompiete facte placed before it by a party, particutarty when Uie impulaBons are grave and they are made agairet the holcter of an ofRce which has a high respwisibility in the administration. Such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charge of unworthy conduet against ministers and other high authonties, not beeause of any special status which ihey are supposed to enjoy, nor because they are highly placed in social life w administrative set up these conslderations are wholty irrelevant in judicial approach-but because otherwise, functioning effectively would become difflcutt in a democracy." F 6) In the matter of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.)and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, the Supreme Court observed as under "3....1f the competent authority issued fransfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered by the court merely because the transfer orders were passed on ttie request of the einployees concerned. The resDondents have contirwed to be posted at ttieir respective places for the last severa! years, they have no vested right to remain posted at one place. Since ttiey hoid transferabte posts Uiey are iiabte to be transferred from one place to ihe other. The transfer orders had been issued by the competent authority which did nat violate any mandatory rule, therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer orders. 4. In our oD'inion. the courts shoukt not interfere with a transfsr order which is made in puyic irtsrest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mata fide. A govemment servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liabte to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competert authority do not violate any of his tegal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarity should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to intsrfere with day-to-day transfer wders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there wl! be complete chaos in the administration which wouhi not be eonducive to pubtic interest." 7) tn the matter of State of M.P. and another Vs. S.S. Kourav and others3, the Supreme Couit observed as under: "4.....The Courte or tribunals are not appeltate forums So decide OR transfers of offlcere on administrative grounds. The wheeis of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courte or tribunals are not expeeted to interdict ttie working of ttie administrative system by transferring the offieers to propsr places. !t is for ths administrat'soR to taks appropriate decision and such decisions shail stand - unless they are vitiated either by mata fides or by 21991Supp(2)SCC659 31994 (3) SCC 270 • extraneous consideraCon wttiout any factual bacl^round foundaUon. !n ttus case we have seen that on the administrative greund the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place." 8) In the matter of Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and anothei^, the Supreme Court observed as under: "14... .For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehavior or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the cohtempor&'y reporte about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by ieamed counse! for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public tnterest or-exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity woutd get frustrated. The questton whether the respondents could be transferredto a different division is a matter for the emplp^r to consider depending upon the adminl^:rath?e necessities and the extent of sotutlon for the problems faced by the administration." 9) In the matter of Mohd; Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and otiterss, the Supreme Court observed as under: "7. The scope (rf judictal revtew of transfer under Articte 226 of the ConsBtution of india has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajencfra Roy V. Unton of ln(Sa. Nattenal Hydmefectric Pwyer Oorpn. LU V. Shri Bhagwan, Sfate Bank af /nc&'a v. A^an Sanyal. Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Onkar Natti Tiwari v. Chfef Er^ineer, Minor Irrigation D^rif., has heEd that the principfe of iaw iaid dawn in tt» aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a ; part of the service condiUons of an employee which should not be interfersd with ordinariiy by a court of taw in exercise of iis discretionary jurisdictton under Article 226 unless the court finds that either tihe order is maia fide or that the service ruies prohibit such ''2004 (4)SCC 245 5 2007 (8) SCC 150 ^, --: 6 %'^ Y_.-"'' ^yu transfers, or that the authorUfes who tesued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders." 10) In view of the well-settted principles as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases cited above, the petitioner has failed to establish any nnla fide against the offlcers. The petitioner has not raised any other grounds for interference with the transfer orcler, except that the impugned trarasfer orcter was passed to accommodate the respondent No.4. The principto has alreacfy been settled in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mis.) and others (supra). Accordingly, the p^ition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge