S.K. Soni vs State of Chhattisgarh Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.07.2012 (Annexure P/2) so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby, the petitioner, working as Sub Engineer, Water Resources Department, Sub Division No. 7, Section 4, Baloda Bazar, was transferred to Water Resources Department, Keshkal, Kondagaon, on administrative grounds. The petitioner further challenges the decision of the respondent No. 3 (Annexure P/1) dated nil, whereby his representation for cancellation of his transfer, has been rejected.

Shri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3028/2012 which was dismissed on 09.08.2012, as withdrawn with liberty to make a representation to the respondent authorities. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 3 for cancellation of his transfer order, which was rejected without assigning any proper reason. The petitioner is at the verge of his retirement and only 1 year and six months are left for his superannuation, the petitioner is further suffering from various ailment for which his treatment is going on at Raipur. Her wife is also an Advocate practicing at Balodabazar Court. Thus, his representation ought to have been considered sympathetically by the respondent No. 3, which has not been done in the instant case.

On the other hand, Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that as per the transfer policy for the year 2012-13, the employee who is to retire within a period of one year only, they are exempted from being transferred from their present place of posting. In case of the petitioner, 1 + years are left for his superannuation.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

On perusal of the recommendation of the respondent No. 3 (Annexure P/1), it is evident that the post of petitioner is an executive post. The committee has not found violation of any of the clause of the transfer policy. The petitioner has also failed to point out any defect in the recommendation made by the respondent No. 3.

It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to 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 i.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 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 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. 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. 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, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.