IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH T BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.§?’56 /2009 X (I, Sobha Ram Khusro S/o VjMGanga Ram Khusro, aged about 34 years, Shiksha Karmi Grade-1(Hindi) Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jarve(B) Block-Balouda, District Janjgir'Champa (C.G.) VERSUS PETITIONER Officer, District Janjgir- ,l ‘Champa (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA A RESPONDENTS: 1*? State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) if av} 2. Director, Public Interaction K/ \O n é 8$0“. ‘Kxf Chhattisgarh, Raipur if HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5766 OF 2009 PETITIONER Sobha Ram Khusro Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Wn‘t petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Ashwani Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. RESPONDENTS ORDER L (Passed on this day of October. 2009) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the transfer order dated 15-09-2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3. District Education Ofhcer. Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jarwe Hardi. Block Baloda to Girls High School. Bhothia, Block Jaijaipur, on the ground that the petitioner has been declared as surplus, though there is one post of Hindi Teacher and the petitioner is teaching Hindi subject. 3. The petitioner has not raised any other permissible grounds i.e'. proved male tide, breach of rules and regulations and lack of competency of the officer who has passed the impugned transfer order. It is also note case of the petitioner that the junior most is to be declared as surplus and he is not the junior most. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, l found that this Court is of the view that there is no ground available to the petitioner questioning the transfer of the petitioner from one place to another place. ,. 5. Question of law involved in this petition has already been considered by this Court in Mohd. Firoz Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others’, by relying upon catena of decisions of the Hon'bie Supreme Court and it was held that Vega/position in case of transfer is well established that Court should exercise its jurisdiction only in case of proved mala tide, non-competence of the officer passing the order, violation of rules and regulations, applicable to the employees.“ (See E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another 2, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others Vs. State of Bihar and others3, Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another", State of M.P. and another Vs. S.S. Kourav and others5 8. Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others“). 6. Appiying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition,being devoid of merit,is dismissed at the motion stage itself / Sdl- {Satish K. Agnihot l Judge 12003 (3) c.G.L.J 143 2 1974 (4) SCC 3. 3 1991 Supp (2) soc 659 4 2004(4) soc 245 z 5 1995 (3) scc 270 6 2007(8) SCC 150