Smt. Sulakshna Talan v. State of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.2970 OF 2012 PETITIONER Smt. Sulakshna Talan RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another Versus (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 13th day ofAugust, 2012)

#3. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as Shri Sao appears on behalf of the State/respondents, and consents for hearing. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 31.07.2012 (Annexure P/1), in respect oftransfer ofthe petitioner from Government Primary School, Indira Colony, Baloda Bazar to Government Primiary School, Dharashiv, Baloda Bazar, within the same district. The sole ground of challenge to the impugned transfer order is that the same has not been approved by the concerned departmental Minister before passing the said order, as it is not clear from reading of the same.

#4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the endorsement to the Minister clearly indicates that the approval has been acted upon, thus the information was sent to the concerned departmental Minister and, as such, the submission of the petitioner is not approved by the concerned the impugned order departmental Minister is unfounded. the District Education Officer has sent the After passing the order, report to the concerned departmental Minister for information. It appears, as pleaded by the learned State counsel, that the information was sent only when there is some direction or guidelines to pass an order in a particular manner indicating that the approval/direction of the Minister has been complied with. The petitioner has failed to produce any other document, which is contrary to the general presumption. The petitioner has also failed miserably to establish that there was any mala fide exercise of power. Even there is no allegation on the part of the petitioner that the officer passing the order has no competence to

#6. ^T^Ttt' —luuii.i^iasac ^ pass the impugned order and/or the impugned order is violative of statutory rules and regulations. employer It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the 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 f'.e. violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order or mala-fide. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved ma/a ft'de, 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 view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and anofher, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another^, Sfafe ofM.P. and anofher v. S.S.Kourav and ofhers and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. StateofU.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. G. Ratnam , Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pande/, High Court ofjudicature ofMadras v. R. Perachi7 and the decision of this Court in Brajendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Dr. Toshan Lal Todar v. State of Chhattisgarh ).

#10. As an upshot, the writ petition, being bereft.of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Gowri Sd/- .. _ Sadsbi-^nalow