Writ Petition (S) No v. State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that in the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Be that as it may, considering the entire facts situation of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that in the the petitioners submit fresh representations before the competent authority within a period of one month from today raising their…
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.3384 of 2013 ^ PETITIONER Dr. Sunil Gupta Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No.1631 of 2013 PETITIONER Dr. (Smt.) Neela Kumbhare Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No. 1733 of 2013 PETITIONER Dr. Vivek Joshi Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No.1771 of 2013 PETITIONER Dr. Smt. Vandana Bhele RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Writ Petition (S) No.1784 of 2013 PETITIONER Dr. Dharam Chand Jain RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus WritPetition (S) No.1823 of 2013 PETITIQNER Dr. Jaiprakash Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petition (S) No.1928 of 2013 PETITIONER Dr. Ravishankar Singh RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus M. }\^ And Writ Petition (S) No.2348 of 2013 PETITIONER Dr. K.K. Gajbhiye Versus RESPQNDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Present:- Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Ms, Sareena Bee, Shri C.J.K. Rao, Shri P.R. Patankar, Shri Syed Majid Ali, Shri Manoj Paranjape, Shri Vikram Dixit, Shri T.K. Tiwari & Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General with Ms. Raksha Awasthy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 24th day of October, 2013) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In al.l the writ petitions challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 06.06.2013 (Annexure - P/1), whereby the petitioners have been transferred and posted at different places.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time. Without there being any administrative exigency the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel would also submit that the impugned order has been passed during the mid session only to oblige the politically influential persons. Even the transfer order has been passed without co-ordination of the Chief Minister. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioners are not the excess employees. l t ^ Thus, the impugned order is illegal and not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. '<< "iil : ^.. i^
It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the. transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. (See £.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another^, State of M.P. and another v. S.S. Kourv andothers3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. & Others4 Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & 0 ers v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authority of Incfia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others).
Operative part
Be that as it may, considering the entire facts situation of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that in the the petitioners submit fresh representations before the competent authority within a period of one month from today raising their individual grievances concerning the impugned transfer order, the said authority shall consider and decide their representations, in accordance with law andon its own merits, as ;early as possible, preferably within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of representations.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that in the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.