t-HC—78 3^cT ^WW^, ^Tfl'y^KS, fe)01^y ^INdl 9b^(ch .sa..^.......^ ^^ 3TT^T ^[^ ( 4^?^^ ) 'STI^T ^FT'f^IW j "^T^T W^T ?h^lcb '^TTW^f^r-3:n^r PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Versus 1'. 2. 3. 4. 5. 17-12-2008:- Shri Awadh Tripathi, (^ounsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh ^l^fci^ll ^ll^<yll* "^..rs^l ipsl-^K ^T 3TRFT 3T[^T Arvind Namdeo, S/o late Shri G.L. Namdeo, aged about 50 years, Occupation - Service, working on the post of Sub Divisional Officer, at Sub Division OfRce No.5, Kanki, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Additional Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Water Resources Department, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) J.P. Suman, Assistant Engineer, Rural, Office of Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Election Commission of India, through Secretary, New Delhi. (Writ Petition under A^ticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) SB: HON'BLE SHRI DHIREMDRA MISHRA. J. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents No.1 and^. 1 'yn^T ??T f^TT^T j TT^n 3TR?T $^^l<=t) ^u^ "q|<4|(^^, ^TH'y^KS, Ic)<?')W^< ^Wv{[ ^hW^h ••••••'•••••••••••-•-••••- "-"^ 200 3TT^?T TI^F ( 4C<?1<S<<^ ) ^'CT^R Trft^T 3TT^[ ^l Shri P.S. Koshy, courj <=t)l^f<rt<i1vl TTR?ff ^.fe^ <pii<^i< ^T^tRw^TT^T sel appears on caveat for respondent No.3. With the consent ofthe|parties, the matter is finally heard. The petitioner was tran^ferred from the office of Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Raipur, as pub Divisional OfRcer to Water Resource Sub Division No.5, Kanki (Anr| the same order was transl administrative ground. After t) exure-P/2) whereas, respondent No.3 by ferred in place of the petitioner on eing relieved from the office of the Chief Engineer, the petitioner assun|ied the charge of Sub Divisional Officer, Sub DMsion No.5, Kanki t>n 11-7-2008 (Annexure-P/4). Since respondent No.3 was reluctant: to hand over the charge, the concerned Executive Engineer vide ord^r dated 23-7-2008 had withdrawn his financial and administrative pi(>wers and handed over the same to the petitioner vide Annexure-P/5.) Thereafter, respondent No.3 handed over the charge on 28-7-201p8 vide Annexure-P/6 to the petitioner. However, respondent No.1 vj^ie impugned order dated 10th October, 2008 (Annexure-P/1) has ag Division No.5, Kanki to the Project as Assistant Engineer by the same order respondenl ain transferred the petitioner from Sub office of the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi [Design) in place of respondent No.3 and No.3 has been posted in his place only within iy-t months when respo^dent No.3 reluctantly gave the charge of the sub division to the petition^r. Learned counsel for jthe petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed without there being any adminj Ijust to accommodate respondent No.3 istrative exigency only within 2% months. x /"c^. ? ls«%fe 1 ^^fe^-^% \^cy '-^s^^ ^^&^ ^T^T^ R'ijch WSl 3?ff^T sb^lcb ^v^ ^l^Kri^, y>Tf1<-l^l<s, fsf<r!>l^^< Nl*4dl *Nlcb """"""""""""""""""""•"•••••"•""•^ 200 3ni(9T XTST^ ( 4c<^<i?T ) -^ Respondent No.3 had alreac of more than 2%years and clearly an act to accommojdate administrative exigency or| impugned transfer order of ^ On the other hand, caveat, in his reply to th< vehemently contended another is a prerogative of of service. The Court transfer unless the same ha^ contravention of the servicel order would go to show petitioner, 7 other ofRcers been transferred by the im| the petitioner that the ord^ respondent No.3 is without Shri Yashwant Singh) appearing for the State also) established, as argued b| CM^<n<fli 'W^ff ^* 'feT^ <F3i^i< ^3TRFT3TT^r |y ser/ed at Sub Division Kanki for a period |is subsequent transfer to the same place is respondent No.3. There is no any public interest involved in passing the nnexure-P/1. (sounsel for respondent No.3, appears on petition as also in his oral submission that fransferring an employee from one place to flhe employer. The transfer is an incidence shojuld ordinarily not interfere in the order of been issued with malafide intention and in \ conditions. Bare perusal of the impugned t|iat apart from respondent No.3 and the ()f the Water Resources Department have >ugned order and, therefore, contention of |r has been passed just to accommodate |iny substance. Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General opposed the prayer ofthe petitioner. The scope of interi|erence in the matter of transfer is well learned counsel for the respondents. However, from the documehts available on record, it is observed that vjde order dated 5th Jul^,| were transferred in each GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50,UOO. 2003 the petitioner and respondent No.3 others place. Respondent No.3 initially -HC—78 ^uEf ^|^|<^q, ^xHy^KS, fc|01'M^< ^IINdl <b^|ch •^ 200 3TT^?T '^3R ( 4?if^<^ ) ^T^T^T'f^T^F | TT^ 'SH^T $h^li<=h hlr "1111"^ '^TTW^f^T 3]nT^T ^- Bah/e avoided compliance, howev^r powers were withdrawn by th^ charge only on 28-7-2008. S( short period of less than 2% nr| with respect to the petitioner ^ officers at each others place its earlier order whereas, a^ transferred on his request a|' adminlstrative ground. ^r, when his financial and administrative Executive Engineer, he handed over the ^rprisingly, the State Government within a |onths again passed a fresh transfer order ^nd respondent No.3 transferring both the v|/ithout assigning any reason for reviewing ^ per Annexure-P/2, the petitioner was ;|id respondent No.3 was transferred on The only irresistible ii| impugned transfer order has| exigency just to accommodaN In the circumstances, impugned transfer order of !\ petitioner and respondent Ho.} cM^f<n^1i 'RW^ff ^'felst <PTI^K '^<3fRmw^T irbference that can be drawn is that the |been passed without any administrative respondent No.3. |the instant petition is aliov/ed and the ^nnexure-P/t so far as it pertains to the ? is set aside. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge «J^..