Subhash Kar v. State ofChhattisgarh & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
(Writ Petition under Article226 of the Cpnstitution oflndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Manaj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 08th day of August, 2012)
Notice to the resppndents is dispensed with, as Shri Thakur, learned Dy. Adv. General.appears on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 & 2, and consents for hearing.
Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.07.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner, working as Senior Internal Auditor & Taxation Officer Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, transferred Janpad Panchayat Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa, on administrative grounds.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is workihg in scheduled area for last more than five years and again he has been transferred to Janjgir-Champa, which is also included in the scheduled areas, therefore, the impugned transfer order is contrary tb the policy of the State Government.
On perusal of the .order namely; the Scheduled Areas (State of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh) Order, 2003,it is that neither Mahasamund nor Janjgir-Champa have been notified as Scheduled Areas. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that the petitioner has been trasnferred to the scheduled area is not correct and as such, the impugned transfer order cannot be held as bad and vitiated.
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 of .^^.^ f"/""^ flsa. 'i;>>>- 1 '^ss-'s^^ 2 ^ petitioner that the officer passing the order has no competence to pass the impugned order and/or the impugned order is violative of statutory rules and regulations. 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 of the State Government. 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. fSee E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 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. StateofU.P. & Others , Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. G. Ratnam , Airports Authohty of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey^, High Court of Judicature of Madras v. R. Perachi and the decision of this 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, accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. sd/-,.,.^^,!.:: ?iatisKK.^^"w? Judge
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.