Sunil Ghodeshwar v. StateofChhattisgarh

Judgment

#1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Districct Raipur, P.S. & Tahsil & Raipur (C.G.)

#2. Director, Directorate of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, P.S. & Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) ^

#3. Assistant Land Conservation Officer, Rajnandgaon, P.S. & Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

#4. State Level Transfer Coordination Committee, Through its Chairman, Transfer Coordination Committee, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, P.S. & Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION ~<< OF INDIA.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.243 OF 2013 PETITIONER Sunil Ghodeshwar Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticte 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anup Mazumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (OPEN COURT) (Passed on this 1st day of February, 2013)

#2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Notice to the respondenVState is dispensed with, as Shri Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer appears on behalf of the State and consents for hearing finally. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initialty the petitioner has been transferred from Rajnandgaon to Jashpur, by order dated 31-7-2012 (Annexure - P/3). The said order was chaTlenged by the petitioner before this Court in writ petition, being WP (S) No.2960 of 2012. The said writ patition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 16-8-2012 as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation. Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation raising his grievances and about his ill health.

#3. Learned counsel further submits that the Committee without considering the grievances raised by the petitioner, representation on another grounds i.e. the petitioner is working in the present place of posting since last so many years and there are complaints against the petitioner. In fact, the alleged complainant was made by an association, which is not at all recognized one, rejected the 1 --

#5. therefore, rejection of the representation of the petitioner on the ground of complaint made by one association is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, this petition. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned order on any permissible legal ground i.e. violation of any statutory rules or regulations or the officer passing the lack of competence of impugned order or proved mala-fide on cogent reasons. On the Aasis of a complaint made by recognized or unrecognized association gr by any other person the transfer may be made, as If on the basis of such complaint the transfer is not a punishment. punishment is imposed there has to be opportunity of hearing and proper enquiry. Thus, even if the transfer has been made on the basis of certain complaint (See: Union of India and Another v. Janardhan Debanath and another that cannot be held as illegal. and Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. and Othersz). It is well-settled that transfer/posting of an employee is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency and there should not be any interference with the administrative function of the State Government. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rutes, emptoyer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative exiggncy. (See High Court of Judicature of Madras v. R. PerachP and the decisions of this Court in Brajendra Singh v. State of

#8. Chhattisgaiti4 and Dr. Toshan Lal Todar v. Sfate of Chhattisgarh ). liable to be and As an upshot, the writ petition, sans substratum, is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itsetf. 'is Sd/- . SatishK,AS^Om _ Gowri y T