HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P,(SL ^3673 pf 2008 PETITIONER Rajendra Kumar Choubey,^b Shri B.R. Sharraa, aged about 50 years, Executive Engineer, Project Division No.l, P.H.E.D., O.C.M. Chowk, Raipur, presently resident of Filter Plant Tikrapara, Ring Road No.l, Raipur (C.G.) c/. Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering, D.K.S. Bhawan,Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer-in-Chief, the Department of Public Health Engg. Neer Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 3. M.A. Agrawal, Executive Engineer, Office of Engineer in Chief, P.H.E. Raipur (C.G.) 4. R.P.Shrivastava, Executive Engineer, P.H.E. Division, Bhilai (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy.Govt.Advocate, for the State, on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (14.07.2008) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. The petitioner Rajendra Kumar Choube has filed this writ pefition challenging the order of his transfer dated 7.7.2008 whereby he has been transferred from Public Health Engineering Project No.l, Raipur, to Mahasamund in the capacity of Execudve Engineer. Leamed counsel for the petitioner raises 3 points. Firstly, he submits that he has been transferred to accommodate respondents -.* :T?^'alS::s?)-, ^ il..-a.:;.^^. .^^. "^t y ^-i aa. 's, s /~ ~" '%. 's &. ..•i8i3B»i. i IES^-^^^^:;A ^ '^^.':S3.^-f^:it^ ^ ^? ^ 1 ,? ^a^. liti("'\ ^-aS^ W.P.('S~).No.3673/2008 No.3 8s 4 at Raipur and thf»Mahasamund, therefore, this order is an outcome of malafide. He takes rae to earlier transfer order dated 30.6.2008 whereby respondent no.3 was transferred from Raipur to Bhilai and respondent no.4 was transferred from Bhilai to Mahasamund. He submits that the amended impugned transfer order was issued on 07.7.2008 and respondent no.3 who was earlier transferred to Bhilai was kept at Raipur as an incumbent of the petitioner and at the same time, the transfgr of respondent no.4 was cancelled and he was kept at Bhilai as earlier. A perusal of the orders dt.30.6.2008 SE 07.7.2008 would show that it is a common order transferring many persons and by solitary incident like this, it cannot be held that either the authorities have acted arbita-arily or they have passed the order with a malafide intention to displace the petitioner from Raipur and accommodate the private respondents at their respective places. As is laid down by the Apex Court in many matters, transfer is an incidence of service and nobody working on a transferable post can claim for his posting at a particular place. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malaiide or is passed against any statutory provisions like Rules or the Act or is issued upon extraneous considerations, normally and generally it should not be interfered by a Court of law. It is on the employer to see that who should be posted where for better administration as also in public interest. On solitary incident like this, it cannot be said that the subsequent order was an outcome of malafide or arbitrary action of the Government. Therefore, the first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is more so because, as stated by learned counsel for the pedtioner during the course of arguments, the petitioner is posted at Raipur since last more than 3 years and in ordinary manner also after being posted at a particular place for such a long period, the displacement appear^ to be in simple and general manner without any voice of malice or arbitrariness. K& t '••^f^ ^ ?•? W.P.CS').No.3673/2008 hitBia^y' Ei'SF-'^ gs, He secondly argues that the petitioner was entrusted with the special project i.e., J.N.N.U.R.M Project coinraonly called as Raipur Amalgamation Water Supply Scheme and the project has to be coinpleted in the year 2009, therefore, he would not have been transferred prior to completion of the project. In this regard, he referred to the relevant clauses of the P.W.D. Manual, which according to him, is also applicable to the Public Health Engineering Deptt. ^ Para 1.036 of Section 8 of P.W.D. Manual reads that as far as possible E.Es., S.D.Os., and Sub-Engineers, who are in charge of construction of a project should not be transferred till completion of the project. On due consideration, it does not appear that this clause in the Manual over-rides the jurisdiction of the State or its authorities to transfer a particular officer on the ground that he was in charge of a project. The words used in this para are clear and unainbiguous saying that as far as possible, the officers mentioned in this para who are in charge of construction of Project ete., should not be transferred till the completion of the project but it cannot be read like that they should not at all be transferred during the pendency of such project. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on this para is misconceived. The third argument, learned counsel for the petitioner raises that the transfer is against the rules. In this regard, he takes nie to section 8, Paras 1.033, 1.034 BE 1.035 of the said Manual. He refers to instructions of the transfer contained in GBC 1-6. Para 1.034 provides that the liability to transfer anyvfhere in the State when necessary in the interest of public service, is a condition of employn'ient of every Government servant in the department saying that no option will be allowed and clause 1'.035 relates to the transfer of Govemment Servant as per the policy laid down by the State Government from tinie to time. These provisions contained in the afbresaid paragraphs of Section 8 no where obliterates jurisdiction of the transferring authority in any manner. They only say about the policy and the transfer as per the policy. The t Wi^i]ii8 IODS/ • J. >->.tt agpnf equig jemn^ (iuns -/PS — —r^^^s uonoui^^ P^sroslP 81 3V1W3V p»„„.» ou .«,»,,«.^ •B'-w:m":r>" ^r^'p^^ °? i'^—8^guIO§3J013l° Md •Affil r;.':^T^"^":^-n:ro::r,':B: ^°^^w^—^ ^M,^z^.^ :^:^:;='^^uw"p::::r::::°^ :Ia:;W^^T.^:;°:r:o^= ^:^:1::::;:-""P^:^TW 800Z7£Z9£°°N^S5'd'^ '7