Brijmohan Soni v. State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7504 of 2018 Brijmohan Soni S/o Shri Ishwari Prasad Soni, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village And Post- Kuthrel, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Departt. Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station- Rakhi, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Development Commissioner, Indrawati Vibhagadhayachha Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Shri Toman Raj Chaturvedi R/o Raj Vila, Flat No. 36, Street No. 1, Laxmi- Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri D. Wankhede, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 15/11/2018 The present writ petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:

"That Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order respondent no.2 amend the place of posting in last calum of petitioner and respondent no.3 by exchanging the place of posting of petitioner as Dhamdha/Durg and place of posting of respondent no.3 as Lohandiguda/Bastar."

2.

The case of the petitioner is that he had applied for the post of Assistant Development Extension Officer in the Department of Panchayat. The petitioner on being found suitable was selected and his name appeared at serial No. 58 in the select list. The petitioner has been granted posting at Lohandiguda, District Bastar. The petitioner has field the present writ petition seeking for change of place of posting. 3.

From the record it appears that the petitioner even before getting entry in the Department has filed the present writ petition seeking for a place of posting of his choice. Such a conduct of the petitioner is not at all appreciable and this would also reflect the attitude of the petitioner who even before giving joining on his appointment order has started with a litigation against the department.

4.

This Court is of the firm view that once when the recruitment was conducted for appointment, the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to have a particular place of posting on his being appointed. It is purely within the domain of the department to decide the place of posting and the tenure of a particular person at a particular place. The High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not substitute itself as a further extension of the administrative wing of the State Govt. to decide the place of posting or to direct the State Govt. to grant a particular place of posting to the petitioner. 5.

The writ petition in the opinion of this Court is totally devoid of merits and the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Bhola