^.f o c? IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PBTITION (S) N0. ^^-7-OF 2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: ^w--" ..-•"' , ^^/^ ^ffy^yY ^yz\ 'Q'-"' ^' ?;^ '^y y \ \v ' Vs (it, !7/..l.;,.^ 1 il II . :^;"y?vs- ; ^ i) ^ 1-^^" -. ^^ '•^^^ - Satish Gupta S/o Late Maheshwar Prasad Gupta ,aged about 51 years, working as Chief Executive Officer at Janpad Pancnayat Wadrafnagar , District -Surguja , (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through, Secretary Department Of Schedule Cast 85 schedule tribe Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Chief Executivc Officer, Janpad Panchayat,Baikuntpur , District-Korea (C.G). 3 Shri S.D.Baghel Chief Executive Officer at Janpad Panchayat Manedragarh , District - Korea , (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .^2^ ^ .;;-' ,,t.-"-L^^. '"^ fc^a',i '%s3.-*'~vi ' ". <»—^ HIGH COIJRT OF CHHA'n'ISGARH AT BIT.ASPU8 WRIT PETTTION (S) No. 6147 of201 1 niOT.a. B^ESPO'NDENTS VERS1JS StMe ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETITION IJNDER AR'1'ICLE 226 OF -mE CONS'nTUTION OF LNDIA Present: Shri A.K.Yadav. Advocate tbr the pet.itioner. Siu'l /!£IIH. 5kS,0, LTOVSSilluSilt A.OvOC^XS I0£ UIS 5IUTS. QR»KR(PRAL) (Passed on l7Bt day ofOctoba-, 2011) 3. Bv this DetitiotL the oetitioDer seeks aiiashine of the order 30.08.2011 (Annexiire P/'l), whereby the petitioner, working Chief Execirtive OfB.cer- Janpad Pancfaavat. Wadrafiiaear, Suraiia. has been traasfeiTed to Janoad Pancha.val. Manendra.e? District. Koria. on administrative @roimds. Leamed couasel aooearine for the oet.itioner subiaits that in a short spaa of 10 months, the petitioner has been subjected to transfer three times i.e. oa 22.10.2010. 29,01.2011 and on 30.08.2011. which is in violatioa ofthe transfer policv dated 13,06.2011. Shri Yadav fiirther submits that due to frequent transfers, fhe service career of the petitioner would be affected seriouslv. He next. coiitends that tfae oetitioneT. beine a, class II olficer. carinot be traasfeTred as there is a. strict ban in transfer of class I and class II officers nnder the traasfer policy dated 13.06.2011. TfaitS, the imr'uened tra.asfer a.tinea.re t.o tie an outcome ofmalafide, On the other hand, Shri Sao. leamed Goveniment Advocate aooearinff for t3ie State/resoondents submits tliat there is ao il!eealitv or infirmitv in the transfer "rder a.nd the same has been oassed on account. of a.dministrative exigencv. Thiis. tMs Court ma.v aot interfere with the imnusned traasfer order. He fiirther subiirits that by cireitlar dated 08.08.2011, the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 ofthe State has been ameaded to the extent that in case .if^s& iff^.^gl^ t^^'' 2 ^ of urgent matters, in coordination with the Chief Mmister, class I II officers mav be transferred. The alleeation ofmala fide 7 is vagiie and baseless as alongwith the Detitioaer 44 more oersons have been traasfared. Heard leamed counsel appearing for tfae parties, penised the pleadings and documents a.p; The imnuened transfer order was i-ssed on 30.08.2011 aad bv now. the petitioneT must ha.ve ioined the new olace of nosting as there is no averment or nleadins witfa reeard to the oreseat statos of the Detitioner asto whether he faas ioined tlie new olace. or is still continuine at his Dresent olace of oost.me. llie Detiticmer has auoroached this Court after a. oeriod ofabout 1 l/i montfas. So far as cont.ention ofthe leamed couasel for the petitioner that the pet.itioner, beine a ciass II officer caimot be transferred. is concemeci, the sa.me is misplaced as the impugned traasfer order has beea passed oa 30.08.2011 aad vide circular (Jated 08.08.2011, the transfer oolicv dated 13.06.2011 has been amended to the ext.ent that in case ofurgent matters. in coordiaation with the Chief Micist.er., class I and class II ofiicers mav be transferred. Further. the a.Uesation of malafide is not supported by any material; except. the selfsame sta.temeat t.hus. tfae same is not egtablished. The oetitioner has not challeneed the iiuouaned transfer ordw on anv other permissible leeal sround i.e. violatioa of anv statutorv niles or regiilatioas or la.ck of competence of the officer, passing the imougned order. It is well-settled that transfer is an .incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide a-sto where a particuiar ofBcer/'employee be po.sf.ed, keeoing in view pubiic interest. as well as administrative exigency. This Court ha.s limited jurisdiction t.o mteTfere with t.he transfer matt.er exceot. in the cases of nroved mala ftde. non- comrietence of authority oassine the transfer order and not beins in eonformitv withthe mles and reaila.tions. T.T'ie oetitioner/emnlovee cannot be permitted to rema.in at one ola.ce forever. Under the orovisioas of service niles. emnlover has all the oowers to "ost an Aimt employee at a particular place in view of public int.ere.st and a.dmimstrative exisencv. (See E.P.P.ovfipDa v. State ofT'amilNaf'-M /7?^/^^?<?T^ ^'y*?"/^?T fvf^ J'yt/ii/^ r'w^ /?yf.o^'??^'y "s? 7/Tfy?/"F?*/^??-./??? F').'?'??/???/? ^^? •ri-vS '..fff-.j'Ut's^f , •^'f'i-t^'Ff ^fj ^.stW-SiVt viit^a vt.3 i-ua «,'•»'( •r . s>'^tftWii viifs-^s^i- ^^s.'t^^i rv^i-ti ^- ^V^Q'fl^Qffi ^f^fQ Of I'vi.P, dfl^ •S.JIOtJ^S?' V. S.S-.K^Otif(^V O.Tld QtJtST^ Tl^ h.'f^i^'^ A.'f/7 <?/^Jfy^ /^^TT^W/"?/^ I? ^iyjf^' ^vfJT J^ •^- /^tlfipyv \ •^A^ ^.vj^^ft ^^S^ ±v^.\^it£^f\^wi^ JLf S-f i^vivi- y * A^£i^*%^ K/? ^f fl-£ * ^^./ V/+-r*:£/^ fL; ^, In view of the above. the netition is devoid of merit and is a.ccQrdinelv dismissed. However. the State is directed not to whicfa :heir famiiv but the t offreo.ueot chanee tistiirt s/omcers and incoavenience not oiilv insstitotion also suffers on ac ofthe emDlovee/officers. Sd/- SATBH K. ANGNIHORI Judge