A Patwari challenged his transfer to another district alleging lack of administrative exigency. The single-judge High Court held that transfer is an incidence of service and declined interference without evidence of malice, statutory violation, or lack of competence.
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.
W
1
$£ng§a $®na§h
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.)
/\DV6 w.P.s No ........................ (2014
PETITIONER-
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1./State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary
2./ Coliector
P.S. Kotwali, District Durg (CG)
i
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:-
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P. (S! No.4045 of 2014
PETITIONER Chandrashekhar Soni Versus
RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & another
r Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Present :- Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Panel Lawyer for the State.
‘ ORAL ORDER
(Passedonthis11thday ofAugust, 2014)
Heard Iearned counsel for the parties.
incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order uniess there is malice, infringement of 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 another7, Shi/pi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar & anotherQ, State of MP. and another v. 8.8. Kourv and othersa, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of UP & others", Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & others v. G. Ratnam & others5 and Airports Authority of India V. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & otherss).
Sdl-
Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge
1974 (4) scc 3 (1991 )Supp2scc659 (1995)3scc27o (2007)8scc15o (2007)8soc212 (2009)8soc337
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the transfer of a Patwari to a different district without prejudice being shown to administrative exigency or legal violation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶29
1974 (4) SCC 3 (1991) · Who else cites this
Shashi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of BiharReferred¶29
(1995) 3 SCC 659 · Who else cites this
State of MP and another v. S.B. KourReferred¶29
(2007) 8 SCC 150 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of UPReferred¶29
(2007) 8 SCC 212 · Who else cites this
Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway v. G. RatnamReferred¶29
(2009) 8 SCC 337 · Who else cites this
Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan PandeyReferred¶29
Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandrashekhar Soni
State of Chhattisgarh
Collector, P.S. Kotwali
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
