Dismissed

Govind Ram Narang v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2014WPS/3914/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging a school principal's transfer order. While noting that transfer is an incidence of service and refusing to interfere, the Court granted liberty to file a representation before a State committee and stayed the order pending its decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh representation before the State Level Committee; order stayed for 4 weeks pending decision.

Govind Ram Narang Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And… — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

Sing1e Bench

¶2

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
3m w
WRIT PETITION S NO. 2014
/
PETITIONER / Govind Ram Narang, aged about 57
years, son of Late Patiram Narang,
working as -— Principal, Government
Higher Secondary School — Kapu, Tahsil
Dharamjaigarh, Civil and Revenue Distt.
Raigarh (C.G.) (S1. No. 42, Annexure P-1)
VERSUS
5‘9
p“ 1. /étate of Chhattisgarh, through the
weinimPONDENTS
Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.)
/
2. The Commissioner, Department of Tribal
Welfare, Civil and Revenue Raipur (C.G.)
3 ./Asst. Commissioner, Department of Tribal
Welfare, Civil and Revenue Raigarh (CG)
/
(
4. Asst. Commissioner, Department of
Tribal, Civil and Revenue Distt.
Narayanpur (C.G.)
5. V.N. Prasad, occupation — Government
Higher Secondary School, Orchha,
Narayanpur, Civil and Revenue District
Narayanpur (CG) (Sl. No. 41 of Ann P-l)

¶3

WRIT PETITION U/A 226^{OFTHECONSTITUTIONOFINDIA,}

¶4

éli

¶5

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \

WP1S No.3914 of 2014

PETITIONER

Govind Ram Narang

-Versus-

RESPONDENTE‘ State of Chhattisgarh 85 others

¶12

Present Shri AN Bhakta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Umakant Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶13

Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. ORAL ORDER (6—8—2014)

¶14

. The petitioner, who is working as Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Kapu, District Raigarh is challenging the order dated 15.7.2014 passed by the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Government Higher Secondary School Kapu, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh to Government Higher Secondary School Orchha, District Narayanpur.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer; the wife of the petitioner is also working as Principal, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Devarghata, District Janjgir—Champa; the impugned order is contrary to the present transfer policy; the same has been passed to accommodate respondent No.5. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be quashed.

¶16

3.. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employee 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

¶17

@‘$

¶18

¶19

Tamil Nadu and another], Shilpi Bose (Mrs.)^and others v. State of Bihar & another2, State of M.P. and another v‘ SS. Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others" Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad 8a Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5 and Airports Authority of India U. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others5).

¶20

In View of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order.

¶21

. The writ petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶22

However, considering the fact that the petitioner is raising personal difficulties in carrying out transfer order and for the fact that those difficulties should be addressed before the employer rather than before this Court and the transfer policy dated 5—6—2014 itself provides for an internal remedy by constituting a State level Committee of Senior Secretaries as mentioned in para 6 of the said policy,^libertyis granted^tothe petitioner^{tofileafreshrepresentation} within a period of 15 days from today and7 in turn, the committee shall consider and decide the same as early as possible, in accordance with law and on its own merits. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided or for a period of 4 weeks, whichever is earlier, the effect and operation of the impugned order concerning the petitioner shall remain stayed.

¶23

Barve

¶24

&O\UIWN—‘

¶25

1974 (4) soc 3 (1991)^Supp2scc659 (1995)^3scc27o (2007)^8soc150 (2007)^8scc212 (2009)^8soc337

¶26

Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

Govind Ram Narang v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Ram Narang v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh Swasthya Malaria Karmachari Sangh and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shyam Murat Kaushik Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr.j.c.meshram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Lalan Rai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Uttam Kumar Ware Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.