Writ Petition (S) N0. D ^ W /2012 v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2939 of2012 PETITIONER Smt. Gulapa Purseth. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K-^gnihotri, J, Present: Shri Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 3. ORDER (Passed on 07th day of August, 2012) Notice to the respondents No. 1 to 3, is dispensed with, as Shri Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General appears on behalfofthe State/respondent No. 1 to 3, and consents for hearing. Challenge m this petition is to the order dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner, working as Commercial Tax Officer, Diirg, Circle-3, has been transferred to Ambikapur, on administrative grounds. Shri Jaiswal, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation ofthe transfer policy of the State as the husbaad of the petitioner is also an employee of Life Insurance Coqioration of India, at Raigarh Branch, posted as Development Officer. Thus, in view of the ti'ansfer policy ofthe State which prescribes that as far as possible, the husband and wife must be posted at the same place, petitioner ought to have been posted at the nearest place of postmg ofthe husband. ^ On the other hand, Shri Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that the husband of the petitioner is not a government servant, thus, clause
2.11 ofthe transfer policy would not be attracted in this case. The impugned transfer order has been passed by the Under Secretary to the Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Commercial Tax Department, duly authenticated in the name of the Govemor as prescribed under Article 166(2) ofthe Constitution oflndia. 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 of posting an-' employee. Clause 2.11 may be applicable when both the spouses are govemment employees. Indisputably, husband of the petitioner is not a govemment servant. 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 administo'ative 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 rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order or mala-fide. '%.. ^ StS*-l-,A/ s li-iy'^y
This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases ofproved malafide, non-competence of authority passing fhe transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be pennitted to remain at one place forever. Under fhe 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 qnother , 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 of Madras v. R. Perachi and the decision ofthis Court in Brajendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Dr. Toshan Lal Todar v. State of Chhattisgarh ).
In view of the above, the writ,-petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Amit ^^
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.