x ^) IN THB HISH CQCE2 QF JODICATOEE AS BIL^FOR, CHH&BTISSAIffi WRIT PE'nTION No. £lt(s) OF 2002 PETITIONER: RESPQND@frS; l.^Sd.^D-K-s ^%^' Daipu ^^%c^/ -^y^ ^ ..#f"~ -Xt'' T'4i s.s.MaT'rnnnm ssa, 0/0. T.at.fi Shri Shuikh MohuEiud Yakub,Aged Moc.ut 52 rears, Lecturer, CQvezmmsnt Hicth,6^' • b'-econdary school, Mainpur, Distt. P-aipur ?/-'TTTT7lFTirp-r<-'/~*Tir)'tT\ '.'.-.iiiirt.lij.^^jArS.iij • ^ 'TERSTJS 1, State Of Chhattiscrarh, Tliruugli: Frliicipai SeuryLary, Government of Chhattisqarh, r-i...,._.... i ..,..,,,! ,.~. r T'-. 1 T...-^ t L'^;pa£-LJiiyiIL 'J'l ^?7'^!(y O • K. S .Bhawan Mantraiaya, .r CHHATTISGARH ,^. &'^ i-« ' ASS-LS'Can'C L^OirtIi't.LSSJ-OHttI'f Tribal HelfarR Dp.na rtmfint, Col-Lsc-tor's.ts* P^s.xcuc CHHATTISGAB.H ^M ^J ^/ f^ WRIT PETI'riOH ONDER ARTICIE 226 OB- THE CONS'TITOION OF ISDZA On behaif of the petitioner it is respectfully submitted as under:- 1. PARTICOIARS OF IHE PETITIONER As mentioned above In the cause rltle or the petition. 2. PARSICOIASS OF THB BBSE03SDBN3S riiJ iltis:.ii'-—'^iliTsi-i i-ij-/v-'v s 3-n T^ns ca.uss '-XTIJ-S os <-us jSs^-L'-j-on • PARTICTJLftES OF SHE OBDER ASAINST WHICR PETTTION IS BEINS MSBE: XI-HC-78 SfV^f VS R'4 tW 3TI^T »t|i»b «rR(Trsh*ii<*> d-af -^ww^, wS\v\e, Kwvy. . fcy.P.2-2+61 ^ 200'2- 3f^r^SK ((yi^cii{tsr) swiiWHfersn^T No one appesi-s on beh is called out. Shri Sandeep Yadav, State/ respoiidents. Argiiinents heaixi.. Order dictated as follov'wp: (O^ By way of this writ pe^ition, fi Constitution oflndia, the petf lier transfer order dated 1 ti'ansfen'ed froin GoveniDied Gariyaband to Jagdalpnr (Ani^ The case of the petitk>i|ier that tlie petitioner and hei1 Quresiii hawe some faniily which, thei-e is sonie dispute This dispute is withthe nieni1'| who says that the petitioner land belongmg to Jania Maszip tiie petitioner ancl her sister ti{ civi1 suit is also pending in thf); has been institiifed, as the d qiiitii'sfl-f *iiic]T^'te^t<Ri<-iii< ^3f1^lT3TT^T Ifofthe. netitioner when the inatt.er Dv. Goveminent Advocate for the .lU.^UU&j iled iinder Artide 226 of t]-ie tioner has challenged the validiUr of I..9.2002, by which she has been t Gir's Higher Secondaiy School, exure P-1). er as stated in the writ pctjtion is sister nariie.lv- Snit. Kami-iuinisa property at Ganyaband regairling penduig since tlie year 1999-2000. iers ofMuslim Jainat at Gariyaband, ^as encroached iipon 25 x 2 feet of ft, Gariysband. Tt is also stated that ^he carc of the faTnity property and a t civil coiirt at Garivahand. This suit sput.e created bv thc Mus1im_ JaTOat A / XI-HC-78 3fI^T%rf?TOi cl^T3TT^Tsh*1l<:ti (ae8iS>3*'sl 3^? ^IWId'i), BTfltl'IS, (s|<1l*fy . (y^'P, 2-^6 ^m'^TgwraR'"'""'"'""*'7"'"' w^ 200^1- aii^ri 4si* ('^3^^) warar ^ifer 3n^r ,- '2^-^ could not be resolved otherfrise. The niain contention of the petitioner in tiie writ petitio^i is that tbe meinbei-s of Muslim Jainat, who have an eye on |the property of the petitioner, bavc given a coinplaint to the Cbi^ Legislative Assembly, wherein if the petitioner aad her sistdr are not removed fi-oni Gariysbanri a:nd Mainplir, respectively, tl' out of coniniunal riot, It is (t'ontented that. on svch. a coniplaint only, the petjtioner has bee coniplaint or any such uistr pleadings ui fliis resard are that neither the niembers of t.1 Minister or his officer beard substajltiate the claun of uialslfide against them. The apex whfle dea]in< 'CW^^5SS3 referring to the| para 4 as follows : "Ti-ansfer w to be uif.erfered with any prescribed noi-in qilltfl'h'l WRTt ff fSCS <Rl«K ^;3Tf^IT3l1^T •f Minister throilgh the member of it is leamt to have. been stated fliat. en there is a likeliliood of breahiTig n removerl froni Tier said p1ace of posting and t3ie afoicsaid acti^n of the State amoiints to nialafide against the petitioner. A penisal ofthe record ^oiild show that no such copy ofthe hction froni the office of t1.ie Chief Minister has been brought. a|ii rccord bv the petitioner aud the falso vaeue. It is worth mentioBing le Legislative AsseiTibly nor the Chief |r have been adtSed as a parti' to hvith tlie niatt.er of KeiiSrwa. VWua 'anflhatan. Vs. Daniodar Prlptsad Pandew reporterl in 3004 AJS va.rious decisions has observed virie hich is an incidence of sei'vice is not. |bv the Courts iinlfiss it. is shown to be clearlv arbitcarv olt' visited bv nialafide or uifraction of ofpriiiciplcs govemmg th.e tra.nsfer •-.L-. '.o. XI-HC-78 *<1*IWI Sh*1icb 3^ -^ww^, w5\ww, lsic'ii<riy .W.'.?.-..^^.6! ^ 200'2- sn^rw^lh? (fsir 3n^r ^trNi 3|1^<1 4a<h ('ictt^aii,'?) B^iiwflfersn^T 3- pOSt^d ISee Airjjani Kanta Ra.ik SCC 169}. Unless m.alafide or is niade i4 tlie Court caauot iaterf S.L.Abbas, AIR traasfen'ed and administrative aiitAioritv ti-aiisfer is viti.ated by operative any gUidelini^E ordinarilv iiiterfere witlli Janardan Debaruith 4 observed as foUows; "No Go+ public undet uosted forevt place of particiilar to decide. Un.tess the onier of tnalafide or is inade in violafion of or rules fhe Coiu-ts should not it. In Union oflndia & others Vs. ts hli; categoiy ol't^ n<tt laTertere anotlier is of sei-vice, efiiciency ia an order oftt of inaJafide of statutoiyl traiisfer, fhe| caanot of routine, a|s aufhorities st tbat of the 4 such orderj admuustrati'4 coiiceiTied. ttiis Gourt Coi-pn. Ud. 574°. <<ii<<fti41i WRff ff teci)- d^Rzrc ^>3Tf^T3TI^T ! Vs. Siate nfOrf-isa, 1995 (Suppl) -f e order of traiisfer is vitiated uy violation of operative guidelmes, 'ere witti it. (See Union ofliulia Vs. SC 2444). Who should be where li a?w. (200-1) WQ.S ^eniment sei'vant or enzployec of a j'taking has aiiy lcgal right to be fcr af aav one. particular place or LS CI1G1CC SillC£ Xi.QllSICj" 01 S. extiplovee apoointed to ttie class or taasferable posts froia one place to oalv aa incident, but a condition nd'cessai'v t.oo in Dublic inferest a.orl |the pubtic adnunistration. Uiiiess t'aasfer is show7n to be an outcome dxercjse or sfated to be in violatioo provisioDs probibiting anv such Coui'ts or tuc Ti'ibuiiols iioiiuallv ivith such orders as a matter though. they were the appellate ubstitutuiig tb.etjL' owii dccisiou for iBiployer./Dianageinent, as agamst 'psssCki ui uic iii'ucreSi. 01 re exiffencies of ttie service 1'his position v«as highlighted by in National Hvdroelectric Power Vs. Shn Bhag-wan, (2001) 8 SJ3C -^^ / P.T.O. XI-HC-78 sn^T ^r R-ii* ^n'^Ti^T^ri^ ^^ ^ks- ..«a(i»ISfi<lmta l^S^SSV^ S^^fPTRPT, ©rflo'1'S,l°IMiyy . '^-p. z/u/ *ii*icn<»>*iitb ^ 2002- 3ll^s>i tiacn (l{di^at<^ET) g^nwafersn^T ~^' [t is iioteworthy that dated 11.9.2002, this writ pi stay etc. weiie granted by th petitiouer is aJso not here, inyst have beeu coinplied wi In lightofthe aveniiel in light of the various decy the facts and ctrcunistancesi to ia.terfere with the tisiisfel whicb was passed as back a The petition has no accordingly. . 'hwlc'i'fl-) *iit«iT^tet^'<Ri«i< ^SI^R'sn^RT for qziashing of t.he iinpugned order •tition was filed on 14.1.1.. 2002 and rio is Court and since the counsel for ttiv it niay be presumed that the oi-der th by now. ats inade in tiie writ petition and a1so ions i-efen-ed to above fmd ftirther in of the case, I do not find any i^ason order of the petitioner at tliis stage, i in the year 2002. iTieiit and the same is dismissed Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge fF"