Benctt v. State Of Chhattisgarh

' Smt. Rita Tiwari Aged about 48 years R/0 masanganj, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District- Bil; aspur (C.G.) '-:'.*S2 '^;.' sj^.^ *^" V, <"* / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PITITIONERS : As detailed in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: (1) (2) As detailed in the cause title. ^ f''^£Sk. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S1 N.o. 2715 of2012 PETITIONER Smt. Durgeshwari Sharma. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB:Hon'bIe Shri Satish K. Agnihofri, J. Present: Shri H.V.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondentNo. 1 and2., ORDER (Passed on 03rcl day of August, 2012)

Notice to the respondent No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with as Shri Thakur, leamed Oeputy Advocate General accepts notice on behalf ofthe State/respondent No. 1 & 2, and consents for heaiing.

Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits fhat the pefitioner is working as Principal, Govemment Higher Secondary School, Kududand, BIock Bilha, District Bilaspur. The petitioner has been transferred to Govemment High School, Podi, Block Takhatpur by the impugned order dated 19.07.2012 (Annexure P/l).

3. Sb-i Sharma further submits that the petitioner is a senior grade Principal and in order to accommodate the respondent No. 3, who is junior grade Principal, she has been transferred in place ofthe petitioner. The petitioner is suffering from Arthiritis and High Blood Pressure and requires frequent medical treatment. The petitioner has also made representations on 21.07.2012 (Annexure P/5 and P/6) to the respondent No. 1 and 2, respectively, for -^ V%, K ^f'' ^' ^ sympathetic consideration, but till date, the same has not been decided.

On query, Shri Shanna fairly submits that there is no distinction between the Principal High School and the Principal, Higher Secondary School, and the both belong to the same cadre. So far as the representations are concemed, the same has been made on

21.07.2012 and without waiting for a reasonable titee, petitioner has rushed to this Court seeking quashing of the impugned toransfer order, by filing the instant petition on

23.07.2012.

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 admmistrative exigency and there should not be any interference with the administrative function ofthe State Govemment.

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-flde.

This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the ti-ansfer matter except in the cases ofproved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in confomiity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remamat one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative ^ exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another , State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and others ssid 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 Judicatwe of Madras v. R. Perachi and the decision ofthis Court in Brajendra Singhv. State of Chhattisgarh and Dr. Toshan Lal Todarv. State of Chhattisgarh,).

In view of the above, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissedat the admission stage itself. Amit Sdi- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ' 2 3 4 5 6