K. Chatterji v. State of Chhattisgarh

SB: Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur,Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passedon 05th day ofOctober, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality andvalidity ofthe order dated 22' September, 2009 (Aruiexure P/l) passed by the Under Secretary, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, whereby flie petitioner has been transferred front Kendai (Morga) Range, Forest Division Katghora to Kotadola (Production) Range, Forest Division Koria, on administrative grounds. Shri Kashif Shakeel, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ftom the year 2008 to 2009, the petitioner At has been transferred four times and this comes within the purview of "frequent transfers". Firstly, the petitioner was transferred from Khudiya Range to Marwahi Range vide order dated 30 June, 2008 (Aimexure P/2). Thereafter, modifying the earlier transfer order dated 30 June, 2008, the petitioner was transferred to Kawardha Forest Division vide order dated 7 July, 2008 (Annexure P/3). Vide order dated 30.09.2008 (Amiexure P/4), the petitioner was again transferred T"T! ^*^£UIi.^£3S fi-om Kawardha Range tb Kendai Range. Lastly, fhe impugned order dated 22 September, 2009 (Annexure P/l), transferring fhe petitioner from Kendai (Morga) Range, Katghora, District Korba to Kotadol (Production) Range, District Koria, was passed. Shri Shakeel further submits fhat there was no administrative exigency for transfemng fhe petitioner as no person has been posted at the place ofpetitioner and further, the impugned transfer order is in violation ofthe transfer policy 2009-2010.

3. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended fhereto.

4. Two transfer orders, which are passed •within a period of 11 months, caimot come within the purview of&equent transfers. Frequent transfer means, an employee is to-ansferred frequently on several occasions. The grievance of the petitioner fhat the impugned order comes within the ambit of&equenttransfers is not well established and notsustainable in law.

5. It is well-settled prmciple of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has lunitedjurisdiction to interfere • Ah' with the transfer matter and except in. the cases ofproved malafide, non-competence of authority passing tHe transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules andregulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place fbrever^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 rf<l ^SSK; administrative exigency. Transfer policy is a mere guideline for the ofScers. In the matter of E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu and another . fhe Supreme Court observed as under: officers suitable "88..... .with the vast multitudmous activities in which a modem State is eagaged, there are bound to be some posts which require for adequate discharge bf their fimctions, high degree of intellect and specialized experience.It is always a difficult problem for the Govemment specialized posts. There are not ordinarily many officers who answer fhe requirements of such specialist posts and the choice with the Gbvemment is very limited and this choice becomes ali the more difEcult, because some of these posts, though important and having onerous responsibilitieSjdo not cany wide executive powers and ofBcers may not fherefpre, generally be willmg to be transferred to fhose posts. The Govemment has in the circumstances to make the best possible choice it can, in exercise ofthis choice, the admimstration. When, ti-ansfers an officer fi-om one place to govemment another, fhe officer may feel unhappy because the new ppsf dpes^not giye,:him^e same ampliti^ which he {iad'wlule holdihgfhe oldpost. But that does not make the transfer arbitrary. 80 long as fhe transfer is made on aecount of exigencies ofadminisfratioa and is to a lower post wifh discriminatory preference of ajunior for the higher post, it would be valid and not open to attack under Article 14 and 16." from a higher post view the interests larger • keepmg 7; In Shilpi Bpse (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another, Aa Supreme Court observed as under: "4. In our opinion, the courts should not mterfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the t'ansfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on fhe ground of mala fide. A .govemment servant holding a transferable post has no vested r,ight to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferied from one place to other. Transfer orders issued by;the' competeut authority do not violate any pf his legal ' 1974 (4) SCC 3 2(l991)Supp2SCC659 g 1e-:1 PL* OJ o Ui 4a. 1*1 ^3 i-^ tsi O l<0* O O sO O •~~1 Vi -^; 00 L^ 4^. Cfl V3 Cfi Q D O/ n n n 1—^b^tS? -O ^. t^i 00 <-n 1Cfi w ^w CT> &. • v ^ 1(^ 1 1 t*d Q g V31ui Kw r Vt1 1 g. L»J s t9 o o 00 CP t w >^bs' 1 1p- o^ .1 M o o 00 & 11 s- \0 r N' CT 1 g t I % t i1 i: 1§ 11 c; R» 1 (-TI CT :^ ^•S.?.8- ^•1-1-3 <§• 1111! g g'^1 f^ llso .f S-'M i :;:5 S-^ Q' ^2 li^ill1 tti^. c^ n~ 29 Q :ISJ-: && w: Ml !S 00 o r & 1CL p E° w (II 1§•<^ ?0 F<i ^ 1o1 •^. <yI 1t^ 1•ri 1 &• •^ 1 1 1 (s. Ro 1 ^Lu 1 •^ i 1 CT- CD S1 s. 1VI 01<< s & 1 Wl g a ^s" -9., o