WA/275/2008 of KARTIK NARAYAN SONI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH and ANOTHER on 19 December 2008

HIGH CCTURT OF CHHAT“1‘I$GARH, BlLAaPUR

WritAnneal No.275l2008M

DB:1i¢NTBLE$HRI SUNIL KU‘MAR§§N§A.§§ENBG’LE SiiR!T. P: SM.AH&RJJ.

PETITIDNERKartik N arayan Soni,APPELLA‘aiS,’ 0 Pama Lal Semi,Age about 51' years,O§ic5 of Executlvs Engilyier,P.W.D. Mahasamund,District Mahasamund (CAL)

Versus

WRIT {ll’PEALIJ‘NDQKHEGECQURT 'APPE‘AL §E§T imii 3 QFfl‘VH‘EwCiiEATIT¥$GARHTo mvgsmzq gnaw ACT2005“.“

Shn’H.B.Agrawal,Senior’I‘amrakar,counsel tor the appellant.

AdvooatewithMs.Rink)“

{emu Kishore —Bhadur.i, Additional Advocate General 101" the Stata.

FollowingorderoftheCourtwaspassedby§gnil Kumgx Sinha. J.

\

\

wadmission.

f

Appellant] petitioner[—]KarukNaravanSoni has medthis,appeal against the order[dated][ 10.][ 12.2008]passed[by][ the][ learned]singleJudgeinW.P.(S)No.6900/2008,bywhich,hisWm‘tPetition, tiled against[the][ order][ of][ rejection][ of][ tne][ representation]for cancellation ofthe[transfer][ order,][ has][ been][ dismlssed][ by][ tne]learned $51'ngle Judge.

The appellant was[working][ as][ a Draftsman][ at][ Manasam][ uncl.]By anearlierorder,he wastransferredfrom MahasamundtoBalod in the same capacity.[The][ transter][ order][ Was][ chailenged][ by]the appellant in an[earlier][ writ]petition[bearing][ No.3921/‘ZOU8,]whichwasdisposedofwithadirectiontotheconcernedauthorities to decide[the][ repiesentation][ of][ the][ appellant][ within][ a]period [of][ 2][ weeks.]

LearnedSeniorCounselformeappellantarguesthatthereafter,a representation wastiled andit wasdecidedVideorderdated20.10.2008(ijledasAnnexureP[1inW.P.(S}No.b900[2008) and the[same][ was][ rejected.]He argues that[the]rejection of the representation[was][ not]proper.lt ought to havebeen allowed by[the][ concerned][ authority,][ as][ the][ transfer][ of][ the]petitioner[was][ against][ the][ policy][ framed][ by][ the][ Government.]

’I‘helearnedSingle Judge whilerejecting the writpetitionobservedthattheorder(AnnexurePf l)waspassedalterapplication ofmind by[the][ concerned][ authority][ and][ there][ was][ no]‘scope for interference in[the][ order][ on][ such]grounds.

'l‘ransl‘er is an incidence of service. No person working on atransferable post can[claim][ to][ be]posted.[at][ a]particular place.lt isfor the employer to see[that][ who][ should][ be]posted[where][ in][ the]interestot‘ better _functioningof thedepartmentas alsopublicinterest.It is the settled View[of][ the][ Apex][ Court][ that][ unless][ the]orderoftransferisvitiatedbymalalideorextraneousconsiderationsorisagainstanystatutoryRuleortheAct,itcannot be interfered[with][ by][ a][ Court][ of][ Law.]lt appears that for these[reasons,][ the][ earlier][ writ]petition[oi]theappellant was dismissed[and]for hispersonal[ditticultles,]itwasdirectedthatheshouldmakerepresentationbeforethe concerned authority As per the said direcuon, the appellant madea representation, which was dismissed by me concerned aumorityaiter due application 01 mind.

For theforegoingreasons, We do not findanyscopeformterierence in the order passed by the learned Smgle Judge. TheWritAppealhasnomerit.Thesamedeservestobeand1sWrxaccordingly dismissed at the monon stage ltself.raSd/.RlISunil Kumar Sinha 3llSW-’fl’T.P ShannaJudgeg ’\r Judge E7