Darasram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

P. Sam Koshy, J

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner has been posted from the office of Land Records

Janjgir Champa to Malkharoda and posted as Revenue Inspector, District Janjgir Champa (CG).

The ground of challenge by the petitioner is that the petitioner has been frequently transferred from one place to other and present is the 6 th

transfer within a period of three years and therefore the same should be interfered with by this court by way of issuance of a suitable writ.

The State counsel however referring to the orders submits that the petitioner has not been subjected to frequent transfer. It is only a periodic

distribution of work which has been done by different orders and since the nature of work discharged by the petitioner was such where the

administrative exigency requires the services of the petitioner to be posted at different locations and the same cannot be construed to be an order of

transfer. The State counsel further submits that order under challenge would reveal that the petitioner has been posted within the same district and

distance from one place to another is not much and therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having considered the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, true it is that the scope of judicial interference in a

transfer petition has been well settled in catena of decisions wherein it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that transfer and posting is for

the administrative exigency of service and if a person employed with the government sector or for that matter in a private sector, unless the rules and

conditions of service prohibits transfer being made, the employer has every right for transfer and posting of a person from one place to another on

administrative exigency that may arise from time to time.

Since the petitioner has been working in the revenue department of the State and that the nature of duty casted upon the petitioner was such where

under the administrative exigency requires frequent change of place of posting. What also cannot be lost sight of is the fact that all these change of

place of posting is within the same district and distance also is not much from one place to another.

Even otherwise, the law is well settled that it is always the prerogative of the State to decide the place of posting of an employee and the only

remedy or the recourse available to the employee is that of making a suitable representation to the employer. In the instant case the petitioner did

make a representation on 12.04.2018 and the same already stands rejected on 13.06.2018 as such the said right of the petitioner also stands

exhausted. Further, the State counsel at this juncture submits that the petitioner in due course of time has also joined the place of posting at

Malkhoaroda on 12.06.2018. Thus, under the circumstances, nothing further remains to be decided in this petition.

Thus, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and accordingly stands dismissed.