1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8499 of 2024 1 - Swarnlata Singh W/o Tarkeshwar Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o College Road, Sahnti Nagar Jashpur, Tahsil And District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Director Department Of Tribal Welfare Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Collector (Tribal Development Branch) Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Jashpur District Education Officer, Tahsil And District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Sumitra Pradhan (Attached Hostel Warden By Impugned Order) At Kanya Krida Parisar Jashpur, Tahsil And District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate For State For Respondent No.4 : : Mr. S.S. Choubey, P.L. Mr. R.V. Ram Rajwade, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11.03.2025 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed on 06.12.2024 by the Respondent no. 2 i.e the Collector District Jashpur CG. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- “10.a. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order/communication passed on 06.12.2024 and i.e the Annexure P1. 10.b. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to suit-ably direct the Respondents to revisit the impugned order and pass any suitable order as per their existing policies. 10.c. Any other relief, order/direction may be pleased to is-sue in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a Physical Training Instructor ,Vyayam Shikshak, who was appointed on the post of Vyayam Shikshak vide order dated 16.12.1993. Thereafter, she was transferred to Government Maharani Laxmi Bai Kanya Higher Secondary School, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur (CG) vide order dated 25.07.2003. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.04.2014, she was given additional charge of Hostel Superintendent at Kanya Krida Parisar Jashpur Nagar (CG) till further order. The petitioner was working on the said post without any complaint under the Government policy, but, thereafter, by the impugned order dated 06.12.2024, one Sumitra Pradhan, Head Master primary school has been shifted in the place of petitioner by attachment. This attachment is against the government own order / policy that no one will remain on the post by way of attachment. Hence this writ petition. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said impugned order has been passed by de-horsing the state own policy for attachment because as per the prevalent policy of attachment of the State, no one will remain on the post of attachment and the State has also cancelled all attachments. It is stated that the Scheme of Krida Parisar is a flagship scheme of the State for improvisation of physical games amongst girls students. The State also gives residential hostel facility and it has framed a policy that PTI / Vyayam Shikshak will be appointed at Kanya Krida Parisar so that dual purpose will be discharged. He submits that the petitioner is working on the post of the Hostel Superintendent at Kanya Krida Parisar and all of a sudden, one Sumitra Pradhan has been attached there who is not the Vyayam Shikshak but is a primary School Head Master only, therefore neither she is eligible nor she is suitable to become Hostel Warden at Kanya Krida Parisar. It is stated that her attachment is against the policy of the State Government, therefore, the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 is illegal, bad in law and deserves to be quashed/set- aside. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that vide impugned order dated 06.12.2024, the petitioner is only instructed to work at her original place of posting on her substantive post as Physical Training Instructor, and the impugned order has been issued by the competent authority on administrative exigency, which is proper, legal and is in accordance with law. Accordingly, 4 the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed as being devoid of merit and substance. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that vide order dated 06.12.2024, the respondent No.4 was directed to be posted as Superintendent, Govt. Girls Krida Parisar, Jashpur, District- Jashpur and by same order, the petitioner was reverted on her original post of Physical Training Instructor, Govt. Maharani Laxmi Bai Girls Higher Secondary School, Jashpurnagar, District- Jashpur (C.G.). Vide order dated 26.04.2024, the petitioner was temporarily given the additional charge of Hostel Superintendent of Girls Krida Parisar, Jashpurnagar and looking to difficulties in running the said Girls Hostel. It is stated that the order dated 06.12.2024 is not an attachment order, but the same is a posting order of the respondent No.4 issued by the competent authority looking to the administrative exigency and smooth functioning of the institution. It is also stated that any employee cannot be claimed to be posted in a particular place and it is the prerogative of the employer to transfer/post the employee in view of administrative exigency. Thus, the instant writ petition being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 8. From the perusal of the documents, it is apparent that the order dated 06.12.2024 is not an attachment order, but the same is a posting order of the respondent No.4 issued by the competent 5 authority looking to the administrative exigency and smooth functioning of the institution. It is for the employer to consider the posting of its employees considering the administrative exigency. 9. While dealing with the similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and Others v. State of Bihar and Others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 has held as under:- “4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders.” 6 10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey and Others reported in (2004) 12 SCC 299, has held as under:- “4. Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by malafide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (see Ambani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa, (Suppl) 4 SCC 169). Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of operative guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it. (see Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas 1993 AIR(SC) 2444. Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of operative any guidelines or rules the courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Union of India & Ors. Janardan Debanath & Anr. 2004 (4) SCC 245 it was observed as follows: "No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public 7 administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574". 11. Furthermore, in the matter of Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned transfer order of the appellant from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana, District Meerut was made at the instance of an MLA. On the other hand, it has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the appellant has been transferred due to complaints against him. In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. After 8 all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an M.P. or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts & circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order.” 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present petition, and also considering the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it seems that the impugned order has been passed on administrative exigency and it is the prerogative of the employer to transfer/post any employee on its own terms, thus, the impugned order of transfer/posting does not required to be interfered in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. The interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 06.01.2025 stands vacated. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha