HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.

SWP no. 1416/2008

CMP no. 2017/2008

Date of Decision:03.01.2009

Sameer Bharti

v.

State and anr.

Coram:

MR. JUSTICE J.P.SINGH, JUDGE.

Appearing Counsel:

For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. C.S.Azad, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)

: M/s D.C.Raina, AG with Vikram

Sharma, Advocate.

i)

Whether to be reported

in Press/Journal/Media :

Yes/No.

ii)

Whether to be reported

in Digest/Journal

:

Yes/No.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning

Government

Order

no.

382-FST

of

2008

dated

10.10.2008, in so far as it transfers and posts him as

Deputy Conservator of Forest (Projects), on the ground

that being a selection grade Deputy Conservator of

Forests and having held a superintending, ex-cadre post

of Project Coordinator, he could not be shifted therefrom

for being posted as Deputy Conservator of Forest

(Projects), which was not commensurate with his status.

Posting

of

respondent

no.2,

another

Deputy

Conservator of Forests, against the post which the

petitioner had held as Project Coordinator, too has been

questioned on the ground that being an officer junior to

the petitioner, though in the cadre of Deputy Conservator

2

of Forests, respondent no.2 could not be adjusted against

a superintending and controlling posts.

Yet making another submission in support of his

challenge to the impugned transfer order, petitioner says

that he has been pre-maturely transferred in violation of

administrative instructions issued from time to time in

this behalf.

Opposing the maintainability of writ petition, State-

respondents urge that a Government Servant does not

possess any vested right, as such, to remain posted at a

particular place. Placement of a Deputy Conservator of

Forests in the selection grade, does not, as such, entitle

him, to man only superintending and controlling posts

available in the cadre of Deputy Conservator of Forests.

Being a Deputy Conservator of Forests, petitioner, cannot

claim any selective posting of his choice, in that, it is the

prerogative of the employer to consider as to which of its

officers

was

best

suited

for

superintending

and

controlling posts.

I have considered the submissions of learned

counsel for the parties.

I do not find any merit in petitioner’s counsel’s

submission that being second senior most, selection

grade Deputy Conservator of Forests, petitioner, as of

right,

is

entitled

to

remain

posted

only

against

3

superintending and controlling posts. This is so because

neither any provision of law or rule governing the service

conditions of the members of the State Forest Service, to

which the petitioner belongs, has been cited in support of

the submission nor would the Service jurisprudence, in

my opinion, contemplate such situation, additionally

because placement of an officer in the selection grade

may not entitle him to any right as such of holding only

selective, superintending and controlling posts. Despite

being placed in the selection grade, the petitioner

continues to remain in the same class and category of

posts to which other Deputy Conservators of Forest

belong to, and in that view of the matter, he is liable to be

transferred and posted at the discretion of the employer.

Even a junior officer, who is found best suited to

man a superintending and controlling posts may be

adjusted by the employer to run the administration.

There cannot be any rider or embargo on the power of the

employer to select any such officer who may be

considered best suited therefor.

Having remained posted against an ex-cadre post of

Project Coordinator Chenab Basin, petitioner cannot seek

perpetuation of his stay against the ex-cadre post,

posting whereto lies within the province of the employer,

4

who may consider posting of any such of