Shri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Shri G.P.Bhardwaj, Jhagru Ram Bhardwaj, aged about of Village 60 Chandai, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Redgarh (C.G.) at present working Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Block Sarangarh District Raigarh (C.G.) Sarangarh, Principal, Versus RESPONDENTS :1) State of Chhattisgarh Through The School Education Secretary, Bhavan, Department, D.K.S. Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) :2)' The Additional Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, Raipur (C.G.) r' le Commissioner, Public Instruction Directorate, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) The District Education District Raigarh (C.G.) Officer, :5) L.P.Patel, aged about not known, S/o. not known, presently working Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Kapartunga, Block Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) PETITLON _UNDER _ARTICLE _ 226_ OF_ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE _NATURE _OF _CERTIQRARY, _MANDAMUS__ ETC. AND/ORJ\TECESSARY_DIRECTK)NSZQRDERS mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2938 of2012 PETITIONER G.P.Bhardwaj. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri U.R.Koshaley, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1 to 4. ORDER (Passed on 07fh day ofAugust, 2012) Notice to the respondents No. 1 to 4, is dispensed with, as Shri Sao, leamed Govemment Advocate appears on behalf of the State/respondent No. 1 to 4, and consents for hearing. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.07.2012 (Annexure P/l), whereby, the petitioner, working as Principal, Govemment Multipurpose Middle School, Sarangarh, has been transferred to Govemment Higher Secondary School, Kapartunga, District Raigarh, on administrative grounds. Shri Koshaley, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed on 30.07.2012 after the period prescribed in the transfer policy dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P/5), which has come to an end on 15.07.2012. Thus, the same deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, Shri Sao, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the State Govemment, by order ^a^-^ g fy. .-// dated 13.07.2012, the period of ta-ansfer has been extended till

31.07.2012. Thus, the contention offhe petitioner is baseless.

#5. Even otherwise, the impugned transfer order has been passed by fhe Under Secretary to the Govemment of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, duly authenticated in the name of the Govemor as prescribed under Article 166(2) ofthe Constitution of India. Thus, the order is presumed to have been passed by the State Govemment and if the order has been passed by the State Govemment, other requirement of approval of the Minister- incharge or the ChiefMinister is not necessary as it is deemed that the Cabinet has approved the transfer order which is exercising inherent power ofposting an employee.

#6. It is well-settled that transfer 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 ofthe State Govemment.

#7. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any permissible legal ground i.e. violation of any statutory mles or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order or mala-fide.

#8. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases ofproved malaflde, 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 rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a ^. exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu and another , Union of India and another v. Janardhan- Debanath & another , State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and others and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. G. Ratnam , Airports Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey , High Court of Judicature ofMadras v. R. Perachi and the decision of this Court in Brajendra Singh v. Stafe of Chhattisgarh and Dr. Toshan Lal Todar v. State ofChhattisgarh ).

#9. In view of the above, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed at fhe admission stage itself. S&l- Sat^^-.T ludfee Amit