HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S NO 3534 OF 2010
S G Parulkar
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Others
...Respondents
! Shri Manish Sharma Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri Sushil Dubey Govt Advocate for the State Shri P S Koshy Advocate for the respondent No 3
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 22/02/2011
: Judgement
ORDER ORAL
Passed on this 22nd day of February 2011
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge
the legality and validity of the order dated 9-7-2010
(Annexure – P/1) by which the petitioner, who is working
on the post of Deputy Director, Indravati Tiger Reserve,
Bijapur, has been transferred to Pithora, Mahasamund.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the impugned order has been passed only to
accommodate the respondent No.3. On perusal, the impugned
order would show that the respondent No.3 has been
transferred on his own request from Pithora, Mahsamund to
Indravati Tiger Reserve, Bijapur, whereas the petitioner
has been transferred on the ground of administrative
exigency. Shri Sharma further submits that since 30-9-
2008, this is the 3rd transfer of the petitioner. Thus,
the petitioner suffers from frequent transfers. The
impugned order has been passed with mala fide intention
only to accommodate the respondent No.3.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
State submits that the transfer order has been passed by
the competent authority on the basis of administrative
exigency and there is no violation of statutory rules in
passing the order. Shri Dubey further submits that the
transfer affected on the own request of an employee is
permitted and the same cannot be challenged by another
employee who has posted in his place.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3
submits that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that
he was posted at Bijapur since 2003 and he was transferred
at the instance of Election Commission in the light of the
fact that the petitioner was posted at Bilaspur for the
last five years. Thus, there is no illegality or
irregularity in the impugned order and the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended
thereto.
7. Two transfer orders, which are passed within a period
of nine months, cannot come within the purview of frequent
transfers. Frequent transfer means, an employee is
transferred frequently on several occasions. The
grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order comes
within the ambit of a frequent transfer, is not well
established and not sustainable in law. The petitioner
has not alleged any mala fide against the persons who are
competent or have passed the transfer order except that he
has been transferred only to accommodate the respondent
No.3.
8. The above-stated allegation does not come within the
purview of mala fide, as the same has not been pleaded
against the person passing the order, but against the
person who has been transferred in place of the
petitioner. Thus, this is not a case of mala fide.
9. Next contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner is that subsequently during pendency of
this petition, the order dated 15-7-2010
(Annexure – P/5) has been passed whereby the respondent
No.3 was posted in place of the petitioner was neither
with the approval of the State Government nor on the basis
of recommendation made by the Director, Wild Life, but on
the basis of recommendation made by the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
Accordingly, the order posting the respondent No.3 in
place of the petitioner is bad and vitiated.
10. I have perused the letter dated 6-1-2010 (Annexure –
R/1) of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, State
of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Thereafter, the order dated 19-
11-2009 (Annexure – P/4) was passed by the Principal
Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of
Forest. In the letter dated 6-1-2010, it was clearly
stated that the petitioner was posted at Bijapur for a
long period i.e. since 21-7-2003. Thus, the petitioner
may be considered for transfer to any other place.
Accordingly, the impugned order was passed that does not
change the character of the transfer and, as such, the
posting of the respondent No.3 in place of the petitioner
cannot be faulted with. In view of foregoing, the
contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
11. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that
transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court
should not interfere with the transfer/posting order
unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules
and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has
failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The
employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the
employer in public interest and administrative exigency.
Further, it is for the Government to post another person
if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an
employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no
interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and
another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar
& another2, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and
others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others4
Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway,
Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5 and Airports
Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6).
12. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the
facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned
hereinabove; there is no merit in the case.
13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No
order asto costs.
J u d g e
