Dismissed

Smt.lela Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2014WPS/3947/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order declaring her as a surplus Upper Division Teacher. The Court held that transfer/posting is an incidence of service and refused to interfere absent malice or violation of statutory rules. The petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Assistant Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Liberty was granted to file a fresh representation before the respondent No. 4 within 15 days.

Smt.lela Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

®~

$€m§h mw

IN THE HON’BLE^{HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHAT} BILASPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION (S) No. ? qq QT/ 2014

¶6

/ PETITIONER /' Smt. Lela^{VermaW/oLate.} /‘ Shri $qn+<>$k \feJm/xq aged about L1 (a @ars, Upper Division T€acher presently working at Govt. Middle School,^{DhourabhataBlock} 85 RS. Pali District Korba (C.G.)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

l .^(/State of Chhattisgarh

¶10

Through Secretaly, School Education^Department

¶11

Mahanadi Bhawan,^Raipur, (C.G.)

¶12

2‘ /S€cretary, Tribal Welfare Department

¶13

Mahanadi^{Bhawan,Raipur,} (Ca)

¶14

6he Collector

¶15

“District—^Korba(C.G.) /” 4. Assistant^Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Korba,District—Korba (C.G.)

¶16

WRIT UNDER ARTICLE^{226OFTHECONSTITUTIONOF}

INDIA

%w#

fHIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR} WP18! No.3947^of2014

PETITIONER

Smt. Lela^Verm a

-Versus—

State of^{Chhattisgarh&others} RFSPONDENTS:

¶25

Present Shri Ashwani^{Shukla,counselforthepetitioner.} Shri YS^{Thakur,Deputy AGfortheState.}

¶26

Single^{Bench:Hon’bleShriPrashantKumarMishra,J.}

¶27

(7—8-2014)

¶28

. The petitioner, who is working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School,^{Dhourabhataischallengingtheorderdated217.2014passedbythe} respondent^{authoritieswherebythepetitionerhasbeendeclaredassurplus} and posted^{asUpperDivisionTeacher,Govt.MiddleSchool,Kapot.}

¶29

. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent Policy issued^theimpugned

¶30

authorities^{withoutfollowingtheRationalization} order treating^the petitioner^{assurplus;theteacherswhoarejuniortothe} petitioner^have not been declared as surplus, however, the petitioner^has been declared as surplus. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and deserves^tobe quashed.

¶31

. lt 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^{ofstatutoryrulesandregulations.Theemployeemaybeposted} anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the^Government to post^another if any vacancy^{arisesonaccountoftransfer/postingofanemployee.}

¶32

person (See^ERRoyappa V. State^{ofTamilNaduandanother’,} Shi/pi^Bose (Mrs) State of^{MP.andanother} v. 3.8.

¶33

and others v. State of^{Bihar&another2,} Kourv^{andothers?Mohd.MasoodAhmad} v. State of^{U.P.&Others"Chief} Commercial^{Manager,SouthCentralRailway,Secunderabad&Others} v. G.

¶34

‘ 1974 (4)^SCC3 . 1' Nbw—‘ (1991)^Supp2SCC659 (1995)^3SCC270 (2007)^8SCC150

¶35

¶36

¶37

Rat/7am & Others5 and^{Airpon‘sAuthorityofIndia} v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey^& Otherss).

¶38

ln View ofthe above,^{thisCourtisnotinclinedtointerferewiththeimpugned} transfer order.

¶39

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

¶40

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to fite a fresh representation before respondent^No.4withina period^{of15daysfromtodayand,} in turn, respondent No.4^{shailconsideranddecidethesameaseariyaspossible,} in r

¶41

accordance with^{lawandonitsownmerits.}

¶42

Sdl— Prashant Kumar Mis’hra , Judge

¶43

5 (2007)^8SOC212 6 (2009)^8SCC337

Smt.lela Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.lela Verma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

Raghunandan Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ramratan Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Dilip Kumar Mishra Vs Central Reserve Police Force and Anr.