Dr. Kusum Singh Paraste v. State ofChhattisgarh

Judgment

#1. State ofChhattisgarh w Through- Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) r"

#2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.)

#3. Block Education Officer, Surajpur^ Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HICti COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •WRrTPETmON myl No. 5984 of2009 PEThldAER ' Ir : Dr.Kusum Sin^i Paraste. VERSUS RESPOTs^ENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ^. •^^ WR£T^ETITIQNUNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agiuhotri, J. jpresent: SfariA.N.Pandey, Advocatefbrlthepetitio^ Shri A.V. Shridhar, Pariel Law^- fbr the State/respondents. OiyQERfORALV (Passed on 06 day ofj November, 200

#1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of tfae order dated 23 September, 2009 (Ann&mre P/l) whereby the representation 6f the petitioner against the transfer order dated 30 June, 2009 (Annexure P/2) has been rejected.

#2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P,(S) No. 4286/2009 Challengmg thetransfer order dated 30 June, 2009 whsreby the petitioner, working as Head Master was transferred from Boys Middle School, Ketka, Block Surajpur t6 Middle School Nawagarh, Block Gharghoda, District Raigarh. The grounds of challenge in fhat petition was that tiie petitioner was transferred witliin a period of 1 O months ofj(rining at his present place, and further, fhe seniority of HeadMasters is mainltained district-wise and if tiie petifiorier is transferred from one district to another district, his seniority would be affected. The said petitibn was disposed ofvideorderdated 12 August, 2009 with a direction to fhe petitioner to make a rq?resentation to fhe respondenf aiithorities Nfhin a period of 10 days aiid the respondent autfaoriti^^w^e directedto ded^ period oftiiree weeks i6-om the date of its receipt. Till the decision ofthe representation, the petitioncr was allowed to perfonB his duties at his present place ofpostmg. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities. The said representation was considered by the respondent-autiiorities and rejected. The petitioner has challenged thel impugned order dated 23 September, 2009, on the grounds fhat the afbresaid transfer is contrary to the transfer policy 2009-2010, there is no admimstrative exigency as such to transfer the petitioner and the petitioner has been transferred within a short spaii of 10 months. Further/the wife oftUe petitioner is a Female Health Worker 4- .C' posted nearto the present place ofthe posting ofthe petitioner. From pemsal ofthe impugned order dated 23 September, 2009 (Annexure P/l), it appears that the ordei' was passed on the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12 August, 2009, after considering all tli^ grounds raised herein this petition and the representation. The order impugned is legal, just, proper and does not warrant any mterference. 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. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passingthe transfer order and not being in conformity with the mles and regulations. The petitioner/employee camiot be penmtted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions ofservice mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and •MW^ admmistrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, Umon qflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anothef1, State qfM.P. and anofher ^ IS&^^w <3^ o^r^ andM?M Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. & Other/).

#6. So far as contention ofthe petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contra^ to fhe transfer policy 2009-10 is concemed, transfer policy is mere giiidelines and not coiitrolled by statutory provisions. The effect thereofis advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Centrat Railway, Seciindarabad & Others v. G.Ratnam & Others5).

#7. Even otherwise- there is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, wmranting interference.

#8. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i Amit (4) SCC 3