Chonhas Toppo v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5954 of 2016 • Chonhas Toppo S/o Lt. Shri Dhan Masih, Aged About 52 Years Working On The Post Of Technical Assistant Government Polytechnic Ambikapur, R/o Namnakala, Near Navin Kirana Store Ambikapur, P S Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Senior Secretariat Committee, General Administration Department, Through The Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Under Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Director, Technical Education Directorate Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Principal Government Polytechnic Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh)

6. R. J. Pandey, Principal Government Polytechnic Baikunthpur, District Koriya, (Chhattisgarh)

7. Dindayal Painkara, Aged About 30 Years Working On The Post Of Post Of Technical Assistant Government Polytechnic Ramanujganj, P S Ramanujganju, District Balorampur- Ramanujganj, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For State :

Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. Government Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 27/10/2016 1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2016, by which, his representation against the transfer order dated 20.07.2016 has been rejected.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer order has been made only to malafide accommodate respondent No.7, who has been transferred vice the petitioner, on his own request. It is next contented that the petitioner has made complaint against the Principal, who was posted in the school, where the petitioner was posted. Now, that Principal has also been posted at Ramanjuganj where the petitioner is now being transferred, this is also to victimize the petitioner. The third submission is that the petitioner has already remained posted in the scheduled area continuously for more than 10 years. As per policy dated 03.06.2015, the petitioner should have been considered for transfer outside the scheduled area.

3.

The grounds relating to malafide are not made out. On petitioner's own showing, it is clear that the petitioner remained posted at the present place of posting since more than 5 years. Therefore, no other option remained, but only to transfer the petitioner. If on account of such involvement due to which respondent No.7 is accommodated in his place, it cannot be said to be malafide accommodation.

4.

The allegations of malafide and exercise of power to victimize him is also not made on the ground that the Principal, against whom he has made complaint, has also been transferred at Ramanjuganj. This by itself, without any thing more, does not establish malafide. Merely because the petitioner is having some inconvenience due to aforesaid transfer order, it does not mean that the petitioner has right to seek posting at the place, where the concerned Principal is not posted. Therefore, it is made clear that the petitioner has no

right to seek posting according to his choice. However, in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner as also before the respondent, the petitioner has taken the ground that he has remained posted in scheduled area for a long period, therefore, as per policy dated 03.06.2015, he is entitled to be considered for transfer in any other place in the State of Chhattisgarh, which is not the scheduled area. This aspect requires consideration by the respondents. Let the petitioner's representation be considered and decision be taken thereon, considering that the petitioner has remained posted in the scheduled area for a long period and he is entitled to be considered for posting in any other place which is not a scheduled area. The decision may be taken as early as possible. In any case, till the decision of petitioner's representation, the petitioner may continue at Ramanujganj and thereafter he may be sent to any other station which is not a scheduled area.

5.

With the aforesaid direction / observation, the petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra