Bharat Bhushan Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1557 of 2020 • Bharat Bhushan Jaiswal S/o Tara Chand Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years Posted As Asst. Veterinary Field Officer (A.V.F.O.), At Govt. Veterinary Hospital Malkharoda, Block Malkharoda, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Veterinary Services, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director Directorate Of Veterinary Services, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

4. The Collector District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

5. The Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Veterinary Hospital Malkharoda, Block Malkharoda, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

6. The Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Veterinary Hospital Sakti, Block Sakti, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

7. Bihari Lal Jagat (B.L. Jagat) Posted As Asst. Veterinary Field Officer (A.V.F.O.) At Outline Veterinary Dispensary Masaniyakala Block Sakti District - JanjgirChampa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Jeet Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 06/03/20

1. Heard.

2. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner who is working as Assistant

Veterinary Field Officer has requested for transfer to a nearby place of Sakti on 01.07.2019. Thereafter a writ petition bearing WPS No.6681/2019 was filed, wherein a limited prayer was made to consider the application of the transfer of the petitioner in accordance with the transfer policy. It is contended that despite that the petitioner has not been transferred from Malkharouda and the application of the petitioner for transfer to Masniyakala (Sakti) has been dismissed.

3. The rejection order of the representation of the petitioner would show that the place where the petitioner has sought for transfer no post is vacant there. Even otherwise it is the prerogative of the State to place a particular person at a particular place. The petitioner cannot claim to be posted at a particular office of his choice. Transfer being the incidence of service, which cannot lightly be interfered with by Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by malafide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the policy of transfer which causes serious prejudice and the State would be in a better position to decide the administrative exigencies.

4. The petition being devoid of all force is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu