Hari Ram Netam v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3543 of 2015 • Hari Ram Netam S/o Atma Ram Netam, Aged About 33 Years Assistant Teacher Panchayat, Govt. Primary School, Akaltara, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District BalodabazarBhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

4. District Education Officer, Balodabazar, District BalodabazarBhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kasdol, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

6. Block Education Officer, Kasdol, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri S. Majid Ali, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board By 01/10/2015 1.

In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.09.2015, by which the posting place of the petitioner has been changed from Government Primary School, Akaltara to Government

Primary School, Kodwa, Block Bhatapara, District BalodabazarBhatapara, in view of the rationalization policy of the State Government.

2. When the Government undertakes rationalization of employees and in that course it passes orders of posting, the said rationalization includes posting as well as transfer, because in a scheme of rationalization various aspects like need of the person, availability of work, suitability of the person in a particular posting etc. is taken care of. In that sense posting/rationalization is not by itself a transfer, but it includes an element of transfer also. The ordinary tenets of transfer appears to be included in rationalization, but the same is not only a transfer but is a posting depending upon various factors. It is not in the domain of the writ Court to decide or to embark upon judicial review to assess the legality of the exercises undertaken by the Government keeping in view its own administrative interest and the aspiration of the local populace.

3. The petitioner has not placed before this Court any such facts by which it can be demonstrated that subject rationalization is in violation of any statutory provisions or is otherwise mala fide in nature.

4. For the foregoing, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order, however, this would not preclude the petitioner from preferring representation raising grounds of personal inconvenience in complying the order. If such representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of at the earliest, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of representation.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Nirala