Smt. Divya Rani Minj v. State of Chhattisgarh

#4. Shri S. L. Michayr, Principal, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Tarra, Patan , District Durg (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON^TITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.2780 OF 2012 PETITIONER Smt. Divya Rani Minj RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State. ORDER 1FT (Passed on this 27In day of July, 2012) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 19-7-2012 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent authorities by which the petitioner has been transferred from Gunderdehi, District Balod to Devbhog, District Gariyaband. The grounds to challenge the impugned transfer order dated 19-7-2012 (Annexure - P/1) are that the transfer order has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.4 in her place. The impugned order is contrary to the transfer policy dated the wife & 7-6-2012, which provides for consideration to post husband at same place, as the husband of the petitioner is working in Bhilai Steel Plant. By the impugned prder total 70 employees have been transferred and out of which only 6-7 employees including the petitioner were posted in other districts in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Even before passing the impugned order, the approval ofthe concerned Minister has also not beenobtained. Thus, the impugned order is illegal and bad in law. The impugned order has been passed without exigency. there being any administrative On going through the pleadings, it is apparent that the petitioner is working at the present place of posting since November, 2009 and - has completed more than 2% years of service at a particular place ofposting. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is noticed to be rejected, as on bare perusal of the impugnedorder it appears that the copy of the order has been endorsed to the office of the Minister, Department of School Education. Thus, it appears that •^ ••'K^ '^"•^'s '•'•• Ei ^:^.-1^- proper procedure has been followed in passing the transfer order. By the impugned order, as many as 70 employees including the petitioner have been transferred by authenticated under Article 166 (2) of the Constitution of India. Thus, on this count, the order cannot be held as perverse or bad. is for the So far as the administrative exigency is concerned, the Government duly employer to decide and it is also not necessary to indicate the administrative exigency in each transfer order.

#6. In the case on hand, there is an allegation of accommodation of respondent No.4 without establishing the fact asto whether the impugned transfer order was passed in administrative exigency or In case of transfer of an to accommodate the respondent No.4. employee, other employee is bound to be transferred to the vacant place. In this regard, this Court in Ku. Jyanti Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh

#7. & Others , observed as under : "12. Having considered the above stated judicial pronouncements, the allegation of petitioner the impugned order/ is passed to accommodate the respondent No.4 cannot held to be a reason for interference, unless it is proved that the transfer of the petitioner was done in malafide exercise of power. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed miserably to establish any malafide and accommodation of the other employee by it cannot be held transfer of the petitioner, interference with the as a ground for If accommodation impugned transfer order. of a.nother employee has been done in exercise of malaflde power, in that event accommodation alone, employee may be a ground for interference by the Court."

#9. Bare reading of clause 2.11 of the transfer policy for the year 2012-13, it is clear that it is not mandatory to post the husband and wife ata particular place, but in normal circumstances, the husband and wife should be posted at one place. It the petitioner has been transferred to any other place, that does not amount to violation of the transfer policy. - The petitioner has failed miserably to establish that there was any ma/a fide exercise of power. Even there is no allegation on the part the officer passing the order has no the petitioner 1 WP (S) No.411^of2010 (decided on 24-1-2011) competence to pass the impugned order and/or the impugned order is violative of statutory rules and regulations.

#10. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for

#12. 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 of the State Government. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any permissible legal ground /.e. violation of any statutory rules or the officer, passing the regulations or lack of competence of impugned order or mala-fide. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at 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 anothei^, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anothe^, 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 of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey , High Court of Judicature of Madras v. R. Perach^ and the decision of this Court in Brajendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Dr. Toshan Lal

#13. Todar v. State of Chhattisgarh10 ). As an upshot, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Gowri Satis^^.^ iud6e