Chattisgarh High Court
Jageshwar Prasad Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 June, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20494
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W.P.S. No. 10341 of 2019
Jogeshwar Prasad Sinha
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Others
_____________________________________________________
C A V ORDER
Post for pronouncement of the order dated 20 /06/2024
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
19/06/2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20494
2
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 02.05.2024
Order Delivered on 20.06.2024
WPS No. 10341 of 2019
• Jageshwar Prasad Sinha S/o Raj Kumar Sinha Aged About 32
Years Presently Posted As Training Officer (Electronics),
Government Industrial Training Institute, Bastar, District Bastar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Skill Development
And Technical Education And Employment Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Directorate Of Skill Development And Technical
Education And Employment Department Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Sanjay Kumar Kanwar Training Officer, ITI Bijapur, district
Bijapur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent /State : Shri Shailesh Kumar Puriya, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma CAV Order This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner who is working as Training Officer (Electronics) has been transferred from ITI Bastar to ITI Bijapur vide order dated 27.11.2019 and 20.08.2019 (Annexure P-1) which was under challenge in the first round of litigation i.e. WPS No. 7618 of 2019) wherein this Court on 18.09.2019 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20494 3 has passed the following order:
"Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of Transfer dated 20.08.2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from ITI Bastar to ITI Bijapur.
The contention of the petitioner is that, right from the appointment, the petitioner has been posted at District Bastar and in between fro two years i.e. between 2015 to 2017 he was sent on attachment to Usur, District Bijapur. Now vide impugned order he has been substantively transferred to District Bijapur ie. one core area to another core area. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to work anywhere else on being transferred and the respondent may consider transferring the petitioner to a different place even if it is another scheduled area. The other ground raised is that, since the father of the petitioner is in the Police department and is working in the naxalite area, there is always threat to the life of the petitioner. The petitioner has already faced a threat from the naxalite operated in that area as he was caught by the naxalite on 15.08.2016 when he was posted at Bijapur and was going to the office for flag hoisting.
According to the petitioner, he has already made a representation giving all these facts and circumstances to the respondents which is pending consideration.
Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the respondents Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20494 4 consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Till an order is passed by the respondents, there shall be stay to the effect and operation of the impugned order so far as petitioner is concerned.
The writ petition accordingly stands
disposed of."
2. During the course of arguments, the petitioner has stated that in the year 2015, vide order dated 23.07.2015, services of the petitioner was attached at ITI Usur, district Bijapur and he remained there till the year 2017 (Annexure P-4). He submits that ITI Usur is situated at naxalite effected area which is one of the sensitive place in the State of Chhattisgarh and on one occasion, he had received threats by the naxalites and therefore he may be transferred to the other place i.e. non-scheduled area. He submits that the transfer order has been passed just to accommodate the respondent No.3 and there appears to be an apparent discrimination on the face of the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) while deciding the representation of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said transfer order dated 20.08.2019, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No. 7618 of 2019 which was disposed of by the aforesaid order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner had filed representation on 30.09.2019 before the competent authorities vide Annexure P-6 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20494 5 which was rejected by the respondent/authorities in a very cryptic manner and passed the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 assigning the reason that the proposal of amendment of transfer order at Column No.4 and 5 has been forwarded as per the seniority at Sl. No. 81 and the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence nor documents to this effect that he was called by the naxalites on 15.08.2016. He submits that the petitioner has already completed the tenure of two years in the core scheduled area and 4 years in Scheduled area therefore, the petitioner ought to have been considered in the light of the order dated 3.06.2015. He submits that the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 may be set aside as the same has been passed without considering the grounds raised in the petition and has given a finding that there is no violation of transfer policy of 2019.
4. Learned State counsel submits that as per transfer policy of the State Government dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure P-9), the transfer policy has not been violated. It is stated that as per revised order of the State Government (Annexure P-8), there are two sanctioned posts of Training Officers in the Trade of Electronics Mechanic at ITI Bastar and the place where the petitioner has been transferred ie. ITI Bijapur, there is no post of Training Officer in Electronics.
5. It is a well settled position that transfer policy does not confer any right over Government employee. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1243 of 2022 (S.K.Nausad Rahaman and Others Vs. Union of India and Others) along with other connected matter Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20494 6 decided on 10th March 2022 has examined the entire transfer law and has held in para 24 and 25 which a re-extracted as under:
"24. First and foremost, transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice.
25. Second, executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration".
6. In the present case, the respondent/authorities have given a finding that transfer of the petitioner is not a violation of the Transfer Policy, 2019. As per the order dated 27.11.2019 of the State Government, Skill Development and Technical Education and Employment Department, (Annexure P/1) the petitioner has been transferred from ITI Bastar to ITI Bijapur on administrative ground after considering the representation made by the petitioner. 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.
7. Taking into consideration the rejection of representation as against the averments made in the application, it appears that the State has shown administrative exigency which can not be found fault. Considering the basic parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20494 7 Supreme Court, I don't find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order so far as it relates to the petitioner is concerned, therefore, the writ petition sans merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge suguna