Judgment:
ORDER ORAL:
(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 and another2, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others4 Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Others v. G. Ratnam and Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey and 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.