WPS/7371/2009 of INDRAMAN KUMAR SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH and ANR. on 17 December 2009

c^c€?-^

11M61£.^^U%8 ^^%?^1

^^

IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR

W.P.(S) N0,_,93'^^2009

PETITIONERLate Shri Shobha Ram Sahu,aged about 41 years, Upper/Y^^y..•<\^f"'^^^^^'^'^••••"(C.G.)VBRSUS

Indraman Kumar Sahu, S/oLate Shri Shobha Ram Sahu,aged about 41 years, UpperDivision Teacher, Govt. MiddleSchoolKathauli,Block-Kurud,District -Dhamtari(C.G.)Late Shri Shobha Ram Sahu,aged about 41 years, UpperDivision Teacher, Govt. MiddleSchoolKathauli,Block-Kurud,District -Dhamtari(C.G.)

^: 1.State of ChhattisgarhThrough:-TheSecretary,School Education Department,D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)Through:-TheSecretary,School Education Department,D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)'2.District Education Officer,Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari(C.G.)Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari(C.G.)

RESPONDBNTS

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

^)

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIBGARH AT BILASPUR

%dtiLetit»on.iS)..No..7371j9.f2p09

(SB:[Hoffi][ ble][ Mr.][ Satish][ K.][ Agnihotri,][ J.)]

Shri Somkaiit Venna, Advocate for fhe petitioner.Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Paael Lawyer for the respondents.

O RD E R (Oralt(Passed[on][ this][ 17th][ day][ ofDecember,][ 2009)]Heard.

1, The petitioner has filed this petition challenging flie order dated3.10.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed on the represeutation ofthepetitloner.3.10.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed on the represeutation ofthepetitloner.

2. Indisputable brief facts are that by order dated 30.6.2009(Aiinexure[P/2),][ tiie]petitiouer,[while][ workiag][ on][ the]post[of]Upper Division Teacher at MiddleSchool Kathouli,BlockKuind, Dista-ict Dhamtari was transferred to Block Dhaoitari attiie option of Uie Distdct Education Officer, Dhaintari.(Aiinexure[P/2),][ tiie]petitiouer,[while][ workiag][ on][ the]post[of]Upper Division Teacher at MiddleSchool Kathouli,BlockKuind, Dista-ict Dhamtari was transferred to Block Dhaoitari attiie option of Uie Distdct Education Officer, Dhaintari.

3, Beiag aggrieved by the faraasfer order dated 30.6.2009 tliepetitioner[filed][ W.P.(S)][ No.][ 4182/2009,][ which][ was][ dismissed][ as]withdrawn wifh liberty to fhe petitioner to file a representation.Accordiiigly, the petitioner filed a represeutation before fheconcemed authonty, which was considered and decided byorder dated 3.10.2009 (Annexure P/1) and the prayer of thepetitioner[for][ caaceUation][ of][ the][ traasfer][ order][ has][ been]rejected.petitioner[filed][ W.P.(S)][ No.][ 4182/2009,][ which][ was][ dismissed][ as]withdrawn wifh liberty to fhe petitioner to file a representation.Accordiiigly, the petitioner filed a represeutation before fheconcemed authonty, which was considered and decided byorder dated 3.10.2009 (Annexure P/1) and the prayer of thepetitioner[for][ caaceUation][ of][ the][ traasfer][ order][ has][ been]rejected.

^'

4. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for tlie parties, perusedfhe pleadiags aad docuraents appended thereto,fhe pleadiags aad docuraents appended thereto,

5. It is apparent fhat during the pendency of tlie wnt petition aaddecision on the representation, flie petitioner has been at thepresent place i.e. Block Kurad for more thaa S^ monfhs, in.spite of tihie traasfer order dated 30.6.2009. The petitionerdecision on the representation, flie petitioner has been at thepresent place i.e. Block Kurad for more thaa S^ monfhs, in.spite of tihie traasfer order dated 30.6.2009. The petitionercaanot claiin as a inatter of right to reinaia at one place forever.It appears tliat the concemed autliority has considered aU tbeaspects of fhe matter aad has decided fhe represeatation of tiiepetitioner, io. accordaace wifh law. The transfer of fhe petitioneris with.iti tiie disti-ict froin one block to ofher block. Thus, fhepetitioner caanot be posted at a particular place.It appears tliat the concemed autliority has considered aU tbeaspects of fhe matter aad has decided fhe represeatation of tiiepetitioner, io. accordaace wifh law. The transfer of fhe petitioneris with.iti tiie disti-ict froin one block to ofher block. Thus, fhepetitioner caanot be posted at a particular place.

6. It is weU-settled prmciple of law that traasfer is aa mcidence ofseivice and it is for tiie eraployer to decide asto where aparticulai' officer/employee be posted, keepuxg in view pubUcmterest as weU as admmistrative exigency. This Court hasUBiited jurisdiction to iiiterfere wifh fhe transfer inatter, exceptin. the cases of proved XDLalafide/ non-conxpetence of aufhorilypassing tlie traB-sfer order aad not beiag ia conformity wifh therules aad regulations. The petitioner caiinot be permitted toreniaiti at oue place forever. Under tih.e provisions of sen^icerules, eniployer has aU the powers to post an eiaployee at apardcular place ia view of pubUc ititerest and adimnistrativeexigency.(See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nctdu andemofher1, Shitpi Bose (Mrs.) cuid others v. Steete ofBihw 8sseivice and it is for tiie eraployer to decide asto where aparticulai' officer/employee be posted, keepuxg in view pubUcmterest as weU as admmistrative exigency. This Court hasUBiited jurisdiction to iiiterfere wifh fhe transfer inatter, exceptin. the cases of proved XDLalafide/ non-conxpetence of aufhorilypassing tlie traB-sfer order aad not beiag ia conformity wifh therules aad regulations. The petitioner caiinot be permitted toreniaiti at oue place forever. Under tih.e provisions of sen^icerules, eniployer has aU the powers to post an eiaployee at apardcular place ia view of pubUc ititerest and adimnistrativeexigency.(See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nctdu andemofher1, Shitpi Bose (Mrs.) cuid others v. Steete ofBihw 8s r .;..«-¥%^r^,,^^i 9^^^^ i.s/'

L«.

anothcr2,Union of Jndiacmd another v.JeincirdhwtDebemcsth & an^ther3^State of M.P.csnd anether v.S.S.K^un? an& others4 aad Mohd. Masood Ahnwd v. StateefU.P.SsOthers5).

Jeincirdhwt

7. The Supreme Court ia Airports Authority of ladia v. RajeevRataa Paxadey & Otheys6, held that "In a matter oftrausfer ofagoveminent employee, scope ofjudicial review is luiiited and theHigh Court wonld not iiiterfere with aii order of traasfer lightly,be it at iateriia stage or final hearmg. This is so because thecourts do not substitute fheir own decision in tlie inatter oftraiisfer^

8,

There is uo chaUenge to fhe mipugned tt'aasfer order on anyotlier permissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warrantmgiaterference wifh the nnpugned order.

9. For fhe reasons as afore-stated, flie petition is dismissed. No————————order asto costs.___—-_—

————————

___—-_—

Sd/-Satish K. AgnihotriJudge

Thakur

(1991) Supp 2 SCC 659(2004) 4 SCC 245(1995) 3 SCC 270(2004) 4 SCC 245(1995) 3 SCC 270

(2007) 8 SCC 150

(2009) 8 SCC 337