Single bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's transfer as a Forest Guard. The court held transfer is a service incidence and mere arbitrariness without statutory violation does not warrant interference at the motion stage.
No interference with the transfer order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
.^
^
SlngleBeneh
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. 3l5'°! 2014
/" Vinay kumar Uikey,
PETITIO^NER
S/o Late Dadu Lal Uikey, Aged about 27
^•i-^>
r..-.",".ik^' ^
-~»•^^
^
^
^
RESPONDENTS 1)
years R/o Nayamunda Para Ambedkar
Ward Rahim Gali, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar
(C.G.) Civil & Revenue Distt. Bastar
VERSUS
Through : The Secretary,
Forest Department, Mantralaya,
New Raipur (C.G.). ;
2T'
The Joint Secretary,
State of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department
New Raipur (C.G.)
The Deputy Director,
Kanker Ghati Rastriya Udyan ,Jagdalpur,
Distt. Bastar (C.G.)
WRIT PETITIQN U/A 226 OF THE CQNSTrTUTION OFJNDIA
s^.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
W.P.(S)No.3890of2014
PETITIONER Vinay Kumar Uikey
Versus
RESPONDENTS
State of Chhattisgarh & others
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Present:Shri Vikash A. Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, GAfor the State.
ORAL ORDER
(Passed on this 5th day ofAugust, 2014)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
v administrative exigency and the same being arbitrary, illegal & contrary to the current transfer policy may be quashed.
3^
.'^; ~r!^y.,:
.f' w
statutory rules and regulations. The employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. (See E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothe^, State of M.P. and another v. S.S. Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & others4, Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railwjay, Secunderabad & others v. G. Ratnam & others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & otherse).
-~-
dismissed at the motion stage itself.
sd//-
Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge
1 1974(4)3cc3 2 (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007)8SCC150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337
1 issue framed by the court
Whether transfer of forest guard to a different reserve on administrative exigency is legally challengeable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil NaduExplained¶46
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another 1974(4) SCR 310 · Who else cites this
Shilpi Bose v. State of BiharExplained¶46
Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) v. State of Bihar (1991) 3 SCC 659 · Who else cites this
State of M.P. v. S.S. Kour”,Explained¶46
State of M.P. v. S.S. Kour (1995) 3 SCC 270 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P.Explained¶46
Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2007) 8 SCC 150 · Who else cites this
Chief Commercial Manager, S.C. Railway v. G. RatnamExplained¶46
Chief Commercial Manager, S.C. Railway v. G. Ratnam (2007) 8 SCC 212 · Who else cites this
Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan PandeyExplained¶46
Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey (2009) 8 SCC 337 · Who else cites this
Vinay Kumar Uikey
State of Chhattisgarh
The Secretary, Forest Department
The Joint Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh
The Deputy Director, Kanker Ghati Rastriya Udyan
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
