Order On Board

20.09.2024

1.

Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 23.08.2024 Annexure P/1 by which the petitioner who is working as Panchayat Secretary in the Gram Panchayat, Arjuni, District- Sakti (C.G.) has been transferred to Gram Panchayat, Belhadih, District –Sakti (C.G.).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government has framed the policy by exercising power under Section 70 (1) read with Section 69 (1) of the Chhatisgarh Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1993 and according to the policy, the transfers of the Panchayat Karmi can only be made after the proposal is sent by the Janpad Panchayat to the District Panchayat. The transfer only be made on the ground of administrative exigency. He submits that the proposal dated 22.07.2024 Annexure P/7 was sent by the office of the Janpad Panchayat, Sakti to the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Champa in which only two persons name Surendra Kumar Gavel and Chamruram Khairwar were recommended to be transferred, however, he submits that name of four persons is also mentioned in the said proposal. He submits that there is no administrative exigency as the petitioner has been posted in Gram Panchayat, Arjuni in the month of March, 2024 only, therefore, it appears to be a malafide transfer and it requires interference by this Court.

3.

Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission and submits that due proposal was sent by Janpad Panchayat, Sakti to the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Champa and after verifying the facts, the proposal was accepted and the transfer order is passed on administrative exigency.

Therefore, no interference is required by this Court.

4.

Mr. Saraf supports the submission.

5.

I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

The impugned transfer order is passed by Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Janjgir Champa. The policy which indicated that the transfer is only made after proposal given by the Janpad Panchayat to the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat appears to have been complied with from perusal of Annexure P/7. After perusal of Annexure P/7 clearly indicates that name of the petitioner is found and he has been proposed to the transfer to the place of positing where he has been transferred.

7.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and ors. v. S.L.Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 observed that an order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter of appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. In the case of SK Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, (2022) 12 SCC 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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.”

8.

In view of the above judgments and as the petitioner was transferred and observations made earlier that transfer is an exigency of service, the petitioner cannot claim himself to be posted at the place of his choice. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd//-