SiKi 6-^ \ ^ "(.-'' y*: Sf OF TUDICATU^AT ASFUR(C<G.) 'AT T» ^C"'^ ^T^-S S/-^^ 7 ji'" i*tF l&)«JNU.*.„...^.....^ i-Einiop ^ Ardl Kutriai' Hazat'i Aged at-out 47 veai's S/o Eadri l-'rasad J-lazari At present working as fasheries 1ns- pector in Uie ortice of Assistant Director, Fisheries Dhamtari Distt- Dhamtari (ccy'. T<T?fipOMn'RMTR -fc» ^—•r ./ / A^^ /^ ^'^' v ^' ,<?• /- ^-. VERSUS State of Chliattisgarh TlTrough the Secretai'y 1-isheries UeparfaTtent, U. K. S. Bhav.'-an Raipui'. (C.G) Director. Fishsries Deoai't- J rf- A> ^.- ^r <- ••^•*• *C- ^^ ^dt '—— ^^^ ^»- msiit^ M^it^ur Uistrit M.sit>uT (CG) Assistant Director, Fisheries Uepat'to'ient, Uhatntari i.C.u.A Li-i-Ai. 1. ^ -'^ *.<'$_, \l-v ^v% ®wW*S '• w-v/ 4 "^•^V^-r ^-/" 's^ .R District Dhamtari (CG) Assistant Director, Fisheries UepartaTent Rainand^aon L^istfict KsitlSllds'SQtl (CG). Sm'i R. &/L Qui'es'hi, Ifis- pector, Msheries Uepart- -ip-nf_ ( )fnci£a or A?:-=?j^f?snt A. V-^fJL ^=-f ~-^^ ^^JL^-f-s—,r ^-^A * At-FL^Ai-^ ^.A?. i.^ Director Fieslieriss T.'ham- tari Uistrict Uhamtari (CG) PEIIFION XJND'E ^) 226 OF CONSIIIin'ION Of' INDL4 ISSUANCE OF APPROPRLATB WKEI'S OF CERTIORARY CrTHEP. SIIEIABLE I'VRCT'S AND UIKECTIONS s- HieH GOURT£ CHHftmseABUAKU-ASPUR SINGLEBENCH : MON'BLE MR.SATISHK.AeNIHOTra.A WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.2890F 2087 Petitioner : Anil l&imarHazari versus Respondenls State of ChhatU^arh and ottiers Present Mr. Wshnu Koshla, oounsel tor ths petKioner. Mr. SushU Dubey, GovemmentAdvocateforthe State/respondents No.1 to 4. ORD6R (Passed on 19"' Day of January, SSXff) The petitioner, in the instEBrt peBtion, impugns the order dated 14-11-2006 (Annexure P-3), whereby th» prtitioner has been tran^erred from Dhamtari to Rajnandgaon. 2. The petitioner impugns the order datod 14-11-200 (Annexure P-3) on theground that the order is tairrtad witti maliee-as the same was passed to accommodate and adjust responctent Ne.5. The impugned order is contrary to the transfer poltey ctated 26-5-2006 (Annexure P-6). The transfer order is art^aiy, unjustified, unreasonabto and without publte inteiest oradministraBve extgency. r ^ 'kh) 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the Stata/respondents No.1 to 4, on the contrary, submBted that Bie order passed was due to the administoaUve exigancy in publlc intBrest and tti®to'anster order contains not only fte naroes of petitioner and respondent No.5, but, by the said Iransfer order, placement of six rnore persons wera effected. Leamed eounsd lurther submitted that ttie transter poliqf datwi 2&5- 2006 (Annexure P-6) clearly provides for transfer e/1 empt<^ee m Goordination of the Chiaf Mintster fcrougb the Ohief Sscrefary. In the present case ttie impugned order was passed in coerdtnatton witti the Chief IVIinister as te evident from the impuyied onier Hself whteh was endorsed to the Secretary to the Chief Mlnister. 4. It was ftirther contendad that the averment o( the petitioner to the effect ttat the transfer order was passed in ®(wclseof the powers tainted wiUi mala ficte, matice, unreasoreibleness, cenlTaiy to the transfer policy, is vwthout any basis as there is no mrterial to substantete the averments except the bold statemente made in Vhe petiUon. 5. Having heard leam«lcounsel for the parttos and having perused ttie documents annexed thereto, it is evident thattheprftioner has failed to establishany roafa fcfew maltce agahist the raBpondents. The tran^er order was passed due to admtRistratiw exigency in <he public interesl. There is no violaUon of ths transfer poliey dated 2&5- 2006 (Annexure P-6), whteh ctearly provtelre for trarasfer of an employee in coordinat'iwi wtth tha Chief Ministor. The present inipugned order is bearir^ endorsement to ttie Seerstary to the Chiaf MinistBr as r 3f required under the transfer poltey. Thus, there is no b»«>cho( the transfer policy. 6. I have examlned the facts of tha case. The atlegattora, stsrted above, have not been esteblished in theiaets of the case. Tha Supreme Court, in the case of Kencfrfya Wc&mfay Sangwttmn vs. DamodarPrasad Pandey andtrtfiws1, observedas under :• "4. Transfer which te an incklenee o( swviGe is not to be intertered wiBi by couits untess it is shown to be cteariy arbitrary orvisttedby malafide or infraction of any prescribed nonns of prtaclples goveming the transfer (see Abari Kesfta Ray v. Stete of Orissa1. Unless the order of transtor is visited by rreila fide or ts made in violatton of oper^lve guidslines, ttie court cannrt intorfere with It (see Unlon cf (ncfia v. S.L Abbas?>. Who should 1» transfarred and po^ed where is a matter for Ihe administratweauthority to dedde. Unless the order of transfor is vitiated by mala fldes or is made in violaBon of ary operafive guictelines or rules the courts shoutd not ordina'ily inteifere witti it. In Unton of li'KSev. Janadhaff Debanafh3 it was observed as folk?ws : (SCC p. 250,para 9) "No govemment servsmt or emptoyee cf a public undertaldna has aiy te^il nghl to be postad forever at any one particular place or (Ause of Ns choice ^nce transfer of a particular emptoyee appointed to the class or category oftransferabte posts from one place to anrther is not only an incident, but a cendiUon of service, neceassny teo in public intarest and effieiency bi ft»puMic administration. Untess an order of traunsfer Is ^ shewn to be an outewna of mata flde exweise ar stated to be In violatton of statutory piovimons prohibiUr^ any such transfer, ttie eourts or the tribunals normally cannot IntBrfere wlth such orders as a mater of rouUne, as though they wwe the appeltate auBtoriUes subsUtuting thefr own dectsion for ttiat of the empl^eriman«E^ment,as against such orders passed in the tntBre^ of administrativs axigencies of ttte seivk» concemed. Thte postton was hightiahted by this Court in.lVatfona/ HyclrD^ecbfc PBWW Cwpn. Llst V. 7. tt is well setUed prineiple ef taw Siat transfer isan bicident of service and It Is for the employer to decMe as to where a parUcular officer/employee be postad keeping in view publte intere^ ss welt as admlnistraUve exigency. This Gourt Iws IhnitKl jurisdicBon to intBrfere in the fransfer matter and this Court can intetfen only In the case of proved mala fkSe, non-competence of authority passing ttw transfer order and transfer order not belng in confbnnNy wtth the rules and regulattons. The petUioner/employee cannot be pwmitted to remain at one place, Torever, by Court orders. 8. The petitloner has not madeoirt any case for interference by this Court in the present fransfer. 9. For ttie reasons gtatod hereinabovs and as a result, this petiUon is dismissed. No orderas to coBts. ———— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (2004)128cc299