Ku. L. Khalkho v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
c^ /Ob 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W. P. (S) N0.
^^6 / 20 13 Ku. L. Khalkho D/o. Late Fransis RETITIONER Khalkho, aged about years, Presently working as Principal, .nNO-^^0^^^^.
^e8e^s^-prKl-ts ow^^slQg^ Navin Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Raigarh, Distt.
Raigarh (C.G.)
VERSUS
1.
State of Chhattisgarh, Through - RESPONDENTS The Secretary, Department of, School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2.
CQllector, Raigarh, Distt.
Raigarh (C.G.) ;
• 3.
District Education Officer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4.
Smt. Ranjana Rai, W/o. Shri Pankaj Rai, currently posted bn the post of Principal, New Govt. Girls Hr. Sec.
School, Raigarh, P.8., Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDEj?ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICUIARS OF THE PETITIONER.
As mentioned in the cause title.
PARTLCULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS.
As mentioned in the cause title.
• • '.
.
'
•:•..'•..
-s'
• •.
:.'
.
[T!"'Ii11'^;;[-^-??S--i1; niiTT^sp:F^-^S^ sab%^sS^^J3g aBi.iawiSBiii%eiBBBaa^s8s^@K&Si( .*^=@s*S6^»u^BSB=°°'
^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P.(S)No.4395of2013 PETITIONER Ku. L. Khalkho
Versus
RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice PrashantKumar Mishra Present:- ShriA.N. Pandey, counselforthe petitioner.
Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State.
ORAL ORDER <'•'
(Passed on this 1stday ofJanuary,2014) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashment of the order dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure P-1), whereby the State government has decided the representation preferred by respondent No.4 namely Smt.
Ranjana Rai, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2013 passed inW.P.(S)No.3346/2013.
2. As a result of the said decision, the earlier transfer of respondent No.4 from Navin Girls Higher Secondary School Raigarh to Government Higher Secondary School, Gorra, Block Pussore, District Raigarh vide order dated 27.09.2013 (Annexure P-4) has been cancelled and the petitioner has now been placed at the option of District Education Officer, Raigarh.
3. Learned coungel ' for the petitioner would submit that the representation has been decided without giving opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner.
k Learned State counsel would submit that the papers annexed with
the writ petition would reflect that the places from where the petitioner and respondent No.4 have been transferred at different point of time within last one and half year is within the radius of 25km from Raigarh district, therefore, there is no such inconvenience which would uproot the petitioner's family or her efficiency.
5.
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. 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 oftransfer/posting of an employee. (See E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothei2, State of M.P. and another v. S.S. Kourv and other^, Mohd.
Masood Ahmad v.
State of U.P. & Others4, Chief Commercial Mana'ger, Soufh Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & OthersP and Airports Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Other^).
6. Accordingly the writ petition being bereft of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
- ';"'~ i Sd//- .
i prashantKumarMisbra ;
Judge 1974 (4)SCC 3 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 (1995) 3 SCC 270 (2007) 8SCC 150 (2007) 8 SCC 212 (2009) 8 SCC 337