Chattisgarh High Court
Neelkamal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 September, 2022
Page 1 of 2
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 5717 of 2022
Neelkamal Sahu, S/o Shri Ram Singh Sahu, Aged About 30 Years,
Presently Posted As Lecturer (Electrical) At Government Polytechnic
College Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) R/o Ward No. 25,
Kumharpara, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary Skill Development
And Technical Education And Employment Department
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Under Secretary, Skill Development And Technical Education
And Employment Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3. Director, Directorate of Employment And Training Indrawati
Bhawan Block-3, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Shubham Verma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
06.09.2022
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has been transferred from Government Polytechnic
College, Mahasamund to Government Polytechnic College,
Balod on administrative ground. He would further submit that
petitioner's wife is working with CSPDCL and is posted at Raipur
field area- Mahasamund. He would also submit that Principal of
Polytechnic College, Mahasamund has recommended for
cancellation of transfer of the petitioner vide letter 03.08.2022
(Annexure P/6) and if the petitioner is transferred from
Polytechnic College, Mahasamund then study of the students
will adversely affect. Hence, the petitioner may be remained
posted at Polytechnic College, Mahasamund.
2. It is well settled legal position that no employee can insist for a
particular place of posting of his entire service period. It is also
well settled principle of law that the personal difficulties of an
employee can be looked into by the employer. Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman & others Vs. Union of
India & others1, has held at paragraph 53 as under:-
"53. In considering whether any modification of the
policy is necessary, they must bear in mind the
need for a proportional relationship between the
objects of the policy and the means which are
adopted to implement it. The policy above all has to
fulfill the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and
of balancing the values which underlie a decision
making process informed by constitutional values.
Hence, while upholding the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, they leave
it open to the respondents to revisit the policy of
accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the
disabled and compassionate grounds. Such
exercise has to be left within the domain of the
executive, ensuring in the process that
constitutional values which underlie Articles 14, 15
and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly
protected.
3. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the personal difficulties raised by the petitioner as well
as the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SK
Nausad Rahaman (Supra), the petitioner is directed to make
representation before the respondent authorities within two
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the
respondent authorities shall decide the representation of the
petitioner in accordance with law within an outer limit of four
weeks from the date of receipt of representation.
4. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
1 Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022 (Decided on 10.03.2022)
