C-^ {- r"I c >;y" ^^p^^s BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^3U /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS: 1 ^s^""/ ^' ^yy' ^:^ ^ 3. 4. Pawan Kumar Singh Thakur, Aged about4.s^ears, S/o. Shri R.N.S. Thakur, Occupation: Service, R/o. Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Technical Education, Man Power & Planning, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) The Under Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Technical Education, Man Power & Planning, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) The Director, Directorate of Employment & Training, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Joint Director, I.T.I., Bastar Zone, Regional Office, Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 5. 6. 7. The Collector, District Chhattisgarh The Collector, Disfcrsct Chhattisgarh Narayanpur, Dantewada, %- The Superintendent, Women Industrial Training Institute, Kanker, District North Bastar Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 8. The Superintendent, <0-Industrial Training fo^ Kaflkef^. District Chhattisgarh Institute, S- &af>tewad&7, WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF, MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/WRITS OR ORDER/ORDERS OR DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OF THE LIKE HIGOI COUKT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S| No. 7SO of 2010 PBTITIONBR : RESPONDBNTS : WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OPTHE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA (8B: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agftihotri, J.) Pawan Kumar Siagh Thakur VBRSUS State of Chhattisgarh & others Shri N. K. Chatterjee, Advocate for fhe petitioner^ Shri A. V, Shridhar, Paael Lawyer for fhe respoadents. 5. ORDBRIOrall (Passed on this 22nd day ofFebruary, 2010) Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed titiis petitioa challengmg fhe oxder dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P/l), whereby fihe petitioner was traasferred fix>in Narayaxipxir to Geedam on admitustraitive exigency. 2. Learned couasel appeariag for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Assistaat Gxade-II at Women Industrial Trainmg Institute, Narayaapur. The petitioner is President of Chhattisgarh Lipik Vargiya Shaskiya Karmachari Saagh siace 26.2.2008 (Annexure P/3). By fhe impugaed onler dated 30.6,2009 the petitioner was transferrcd to Geedam, Beiag aggrieved fhe petitioner filed a representation on 31.7.2009 (Anuexure P/4) but ofno avail. The transfer of fhe petitioner is agabist the traasfer poUcy. 3. On the other hand learaed coimsel appearmg for the respondents submits fhat fhe transfer of tihie petitioner is made on admmistrative exigency along with maay other einployees. 4. I Iiave heard leanied counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended fhereto. By fhe impugned order as many as 42 peraons have been transferred fix>m one place to other, on admiDistratfcye basis. The transfer order was passed on 30.6.2009 aod about 8 monfhs, fhe petitioner has filed fhis petition. Therc is no chaUenge to fhe impugned order on any other permissible 7. legal grounds, warranting iaterference witfa fbe iaipug&ed oxder, Thus, in fhe opiaion of fhis Court, no case for iaterferCTtce is warraated, Even otherwise, it is weH-setfled principle of law that tcaasfer is an iacidence of sendce aad it is for fhe employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keepmg ia view public interest as well as admmistrative exigency, Tbm Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere wifh fhe toransfer matter^ except ia fhe cases of proved malafide, aon-competence of aufhority passmg fhe transfer order and not being m coiaformity witti fhe rules and regiilations. The petitioner caxinot be penmtted to remam. at one place forcver, Under fhe provisions of seruice niles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particiilar place ixx view of pubUc iaterest and admmistrative exigency. (See JB.P.JIoyappa w* State of TamU JWcutu euuf anotfcer1, ShUpi Bose ^Srs^ emd others w* State af Bihar & anather3^ Uni^n qf Jiutte <md eiiurther ^ Jtancirdhcui DebeuuxKh. & cuiethcr3, iStafee of 9LP. <md euwther v. S.S.J&>un» and others4 and Mohd. Mtisood Ahinad ^ Stwte of UJP. &Others5/ TIie Supreme Coiut ia Airporte Authiority of Ittdla v» Rajeev RtAaa Pattdey & Others6, held fhat <eln a matter of transfer of a govenmient eniployee, scope ofjudiciat review is Ifcmited and the Hi^b Court would aot iaterferc wiffa aa order of traasfer lightly, be it at mterim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute fheir own decision in the matter oftraasfer^ For fhe reasons as afore-stated, the petition is dismissed, Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 11974 (4) SCC 3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4(1995)3SCC270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337