S [/2 x ‘ > / w at) kw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Writpetitioms1 No. )U/ t C ? /2011 PETITIONER / Nemu Ram Sonber S/o Shri Hira lal Sonber, aged about 51 years, Occupation Upper Division Teacher .Posted at Government Middle School Khartuli, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) £2) The District Collector Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs submit as under : l) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:— As stated in cause title above 2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS:- As stated above in cause title. ‘z ! @\ \\ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Upper Division Teacher at Government Middle School, Khartuli, District Dhamtari has been transferredto Government Girls Middle School, Magarlod vide order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l). Shri Dadsena further submits that the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) is bad in law as, earlier, in a petition filed by the petitioner before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 869/2010, this Court, vide order dated 03.03.2010 (Annexure P/2) had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with the policy of rationalization. It was further directed to take the decision as expeditiously as possible. On perusal of the order dated 03.03.2010, it appears that the petitioner has continued at the original place of posting even after passing of the transfer order dated 13.09.2009. Now, aRer a lapse of almost two years, the impugned transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) has been passed. The contention of the petitioner that any transfer order could have been passed only after considering the representation dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure P/4) filed by the petitioner, is baseless and frivolous as the earlier transfer order was never given effect to. Now, it appears, that the present transfer order has been passed in administrative exigency ¢ Qé HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4703 of 2011 PETITIONER : Nemu Ram Sonber VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hou’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri S.K.Dadsena, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 18 day of August, 201 1) 2% as alongwith the petitioner, as many as 69 more persons have been transferred. 4. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. mala fide, violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order. 5. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide, non— competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another], Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anotherz, State ofMP. and another v. S.S.Kourav and others3 and Moha’. MasoodAhmad v. State of U.P. & Others"). 6. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/—' Satish K. Agnihdtri Judge 1 2 (1974) 4 soc 3 3 (2004) 4 scc 245 4 (1995) 3 scc 27o (2007) 8 sco 150