Judgment · High Court

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgmhQtrLJ, Present: Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents ORDER (Passed on 25fh day ofJuly, 2012)

#1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.07.2012 (Annexure P/l) whereby, the petitioner, working as Assistant Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Dhamtari, has been transferred as Deputy Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Dallirajhara, on administrative grounds.

#2. Shri Patel, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed contrar>' to the transfer policy dated 07.06.2012 wherein under clause 2.8, it is provided that no fa-ansfers can be made before completion of one year at a particular place, and further, the petitioner cannot be transferred to any other place as her wife is working as Shiksha Kanni Grade III in the same pl.ace, which amounts to violation of clause 2.11 ofthe transfer policy. Shri Patel next submits that the representation of the petitioner for cancellation of his traasfer is still pending consideration before the respondent authorities as no orders have been passed on the said representation.

#3. On the other hand, Shri Sao, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the impugned traasfer order has been passed in administrative exigency aad there is no illegality. \?sj ''ih'^ey "tfss^ l.lll^ ,.—1^ 'i:^;51^^.. '^Eg^:^.'"1;-: , Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. So far as clause 2.8 ofthe transfer policy is concemed, it provides that an employee should not be transferred before completion of one year at a particular post. However, m the administrative exigency and public interest, the petitioner can very well be transferred, even if he has not completed one year at his present placeofposting. Further, bare reading ofclause 2.11 ofthe transfer policy for the year 2012-13, it is clear that it is not mandatory to post the husband and wife at a particular place but in normal cireumstances, the husbandand wife should be posted at one place. If the petitioner has been fa'ansferred to any other place, that does not amount to violation of the transfer policy. So far as the representation of fhe petitioner is concemed, the petitioner has made a representation on 16.07.2012 (Annexinre P/8) and without waiting for a reasonable period'to enable the authority to take any decision, has rashed to this Court on 23.07.2012. Law in this respect is clear that a reasonable time be granted to the officer concemed before whom the representation is filed. The Supreme Court, in S.S.Rathore v. State ofMadhya Pradesh , has laid down that a representation must be decided withm a reasonable time, may be within three to six months. 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 offhe State Govemment. ' ->aaoi4_SCC 582 -?;' ^ The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any permissible legal ground i.e. violation ofany statutory mles or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order or mala-fide. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases ofproved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be pennitted to remam at one place forever. Under the provisions of service mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and admmistrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v.State ofTamil Nadu and anothei^, Union oflndia 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 ofthis Court in Brajendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Dr. Toshan Lal Todar v. State ofChhattisgarh10 ). In view of fhe above, fhe writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Amit Satis,,t^'tri 3ud6e 2 3 4 5