3mm agwa’w ‘ {V é (amod/ @ CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION. NOKJ&8OF z 2005 BN ETWEE / Smt. Subiya Qureshi W/o Shri Shakil Qureshi , aged about 37 years, occupation service, working on the post of A.N.M. ,posted at Sub Health Centre Lalutoala ,Chhuriya Block and Tahsil Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon (CG), PETITIONER kn“ / 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of Health and Family a Welfare Mantralay, Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. The Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh , Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). /3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Hospital Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (CG)._ @§?r> - ,_<\§;he -a%?andgaon Block Medical (CG). Officer, Block V and Tahsil Chhuriya , District ta at r . J/(éif‘ ‘vi s ‘ I”i3? w‘mw‘; re‘é‘ w“ x RS ESPONDENT i _ ,. q I 3} f. f” / Kg, ' 'r PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OE cons'rl'rU'rlon OE INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As stated in the cause title above. PARTICULARS, OF THE RESPONDENTS. As/vstateld in the cause title above. XI-HC-78 W§nias w? M449? anéelw (W) mzoof .. Shn‘ Pankaj Shrivasta I.A.No.8062/ 2005 This is an applicau'o taken up on Board. This in‘ Heard. The petitioner; who i Lalutola, Block 6b Tahsil C challenged har traJlsfar 0rd which she has been transfe Kendra, Ruwatala, Black Dc Learned counsel f0: petitioner is a lady and the 1 SO Kms. from her present that the impugned order oi academic session and the applicable in case of the pt Shxi Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. va, Panel Lawyer, for the state. 1 for urgent hearing. The matter is erim application stands disposed of. s a lady aged about 37 years and is ‘presently Working as A.N.M. posted at Sub-health Center, ‘huria, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) has 3r dated 31.8.2005 (Annexuie P—Qfby rred from the said place to Up-Swasth ngargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon. ? the petitioner submits that the 1ew place of transfer is at a distanceuof place of posting. He further submits transfer has been passed in the mid same is against the transfer policy *titioner. He also submits that it has @ mermaaiw malesrmin . mmwma WW#WW $3§wanést k 28.9.2005 XI-HC-78 WW,W,WE‘< mm“ WWW mzob 5‘) ‘ mamm ' amméewwia? marW (W) mmm met ‘ .1.” WW#WW $ 31% anéat not been shown in Vthe tranéfm order that th€ same has been issued on administrative exigency and the aforesaid column of remark in the impugned ore er Annexure P2 is kept as blank. Learned counsel submits that on these grounds the order of transfer of the petitioner is a mala ride order and the same should be quashed. The law in relation to interference by the Courts in the matter of transfer ’is now well settled. The Apex Court While dealing with the matter of g9 y y g ME Damddar 'Prasad Pand 2004 AH? SCW 5563 held that the transfer which is an incidence with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitraiy or vitiated by malajE'de or infra< tion of any prescribed norms of (Please N see Ambani Kanta Ra -Vs- State of Orissa - 1995 .Court further held that unless mala flde or is made in violation principles governing the transfex ndrik a Via a San athan -Vs- of service is not to be interfered (Samar) 4 soc 119). The Apex ‘he order of transfer is vitiated by of operative guidelines, the Court cannot 1993 SC interfere 2444). with Who it. should (See Uion b transferred of India ~Vs- and posted S.L. Ahbas where Am is @ . .“2’00 r ’mmmwv mmwm mm#‘WW‘ $Wan§er “No Gove‘ undertaking hd transfer of a pa or category of another is n Unless an order of transfer is s own to be an outcome of mala-fide exercise. or s ated to be in violation of statutory provisions pro ibiting any such transfen the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a m’ tier of routine, as though they were the appellate auth rities substituting their'own decisionfor that of the e ployee/management: as against such order passe exigencies of .t SCC 574. the petitioner could not point out an Learned counsel for specific grounds on the’basis of which it can be assumed that the SP/FS/2005-20,000 e ,v m§qi$ WeW (W) ' _ -mmv%a<méer a matter for the administr - order of-transfer is vitiated Debanatn & anotherzzoc Supreme Court as follows: htive authoxity to decide. Unless the by mala f1de or is made in Violation of operative any guidelines or rules the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. ‘In Union of India ‘& others“—Vs- Janardan ‘41 4 SCC 245, it Was observed by the mment servant or employee of a pubiic, s any legal right to be postedforever at ' ' any one panionlar place or place of his choice since rticular employee appointed to the class transferable posts from one plam to only an incident, but a condition of service, neoes my too in public interest and effia'ency in the public administration. in the interest of administrative 'e service concerned, This position was. this Court in National Hydroelectric Ltd. —Vs- Shri Bhgwan (2001! 8 o ‘ y XlvHC-78 WW,WIE W marW (W) @ wwwmr aananéemmias W tmnsfer of petitioner has been aEected by mala—fide and the same is vitiated for the said reason. So faxva/s the points igised by’ the petitioner-regarding her personal diificulties are conce med, in the opinion"of this Court it is for the employer to look into the personal diniculties of the employee. The employer is a1“ ays obliged to look into the personal grievances 'of his employee with a View to keep him/ her-in such a z condition that he]she may render an excellent service to the employer. Keeping this principle in mind thought I am not interfering with the order of [transfer but I am directing that the petitioner may file a representation before the competent authority and if such a representation 1s filed the competent authority shall dispOSa of the same in accordance with law. The petitioner, if so advised, may representation raising all her grievances before the competent authority within a period of 3 weeks from today and if such a representation is nled, the competent authority shall be obliged to dispose of the same as early s possible preferably within a month from the date of filing of the oresaid representation before him. file a detailed Wmmm Wp %g mzoo$ ewe-«mama _ WW#WW .‘Ll, i wwmw waw WV x. Xl-HC-78 W Mai 1mm amias mzoo s/ ms?W (twig?) maimm mmwa 311w K 3". WWWMW amméam €5Wméa In the meanwhile, the impugnsd order of transfar so far as it relates to the petitioner Shall not be given effect to for a period of 8 ‘ weeks from today. This Ipetition stands ftLmally disposed of. Coosequ'ently, M.W.P. No.3640 of 2005 for grant of interim relief also stands disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha ‘ \ (. ; Judge 1 § QC. as per rules.