VIJAY JAMNIK Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The verdict passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 618 of 2019 preferred by the 4th Respondent herein (Writ Petitioner) allowing the appeal and interdicting the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge, granting the relief to the Writ Petitioner to the extent as mentioned therein, is sought to be reviewed at the instance of the 4th Respondent in the Writ Appeal/Writ Petition.

(2.) Annexure A/2 and A/5 orders transferring the Appellant, who is already holding the cadre and working as Executive Engineer, to accommodate the 4 th Respondent/Review Petitioner who is only an Assistant Engineer (giving the charge of the Executive Engineer), in total disregard to the clear mandate of Clause 2.14 of the transfer norms, was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge declined interference which hence was sought to be interdicted by filing the appeal.

(3.) After making a threadbare analysis of the facts and figures, based on the the submissions raised by the parties on both the sides, it was clearly held by this Court that the course pursued by the Respondents concerned did not demonstrate any administrative exigency, simultaneously observing that even by the farthest stretch of imagination, the knowledge, skill and experience gathered by 4th Respondent therein (Review Petitioner herein), who was only an Assistant Engineer to function as "Executive Engineer Incharge", can only be lesser than the said traits gathered by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner, who was already holding the post of Executive Engineer for more than 11/2 decades i.e. from 2004, more so when there was no complaint against the service of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner. It was further observed that infringement of Clause 2.14 of the transfer norms was not explained from the part of the official Respondents, which virtually prohibits the filling of the post by giving charge to a junior officer in the lower rank after transferring the senior holding the higher cadre from the said cadre post, unless the exigency was so imminent to effect such an arrangement. This Court observed that posting an Assistant Engineer with much lesser experience giving the charge of the Executive Engineer, after shifting the Executive Engineer having an experience of 15 years in the said cadre, could not be certified as an instance of administrative exigency but was an instance of extending undue favours to the 4th Respondent in the appeal/writ petition (Review Petitioner herein) who cannot claim posting as an "Executive Engineer In-charge", as a matter of right. It was accordingly that the relief was moulded in paragraph 16 in the following lines: