HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition iSyNo.3269 of2007 Petitioner Vinod Tamboll, S/o. Late Shri Sameia, aged sbout 48 years, occupation — Service, presently posted as Patwari at Patwari Halka No.8, Revenue inspector Circte, Bilha, Tahsil - Biiha, Dist. Biiaspur, CG. Resppndents Versus 1) The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. 2) Collector, Bilaspur, CG. 3) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bi!aspur,CG. 4) Shri Hemant Patanwar, occupation- Service, Patf/ari, posted as Patwari Haika No.14, Penderya, District Bilaspur, CG. 5) Shri Vijay Bharat Sahu, S/o. Shri S.R. Sahu, aged about 33 years, occupation - Ser/ice, Patwari at Patwari Halka No.23, Tifra, Bilaspur, CG. (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) S3: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri indrasen Sahu, counsel for the petitioner Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panei Lawyer for the State (Passed on 11 *June, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Patwari in the Revenue Department. Vide order dated 30-6-2006 (Annexure P/1), petitionerwastransferred from Patwari -2- Haika No.47, Revenue Inspector Circle, Bilha, District Bilaspur to Patwari Halka No. 23, Tifra, District Bilaspur. The said order was challenged by one Shri Vijay BharatSahu who was working as Patwari at Patwari Halka No.23 at that point of time in Writ Petition (S) No.3381/2006 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13-7-2006 (Annexure P/2). In the meantime, vide order dated 1-5-2007 (Annexure P/3) one Mr. Hemant Patanwar - respondent No.4 herein was transferred from PatwanHalka No.14,Pendaria to Fatwari Haika No.23, Tifra. 2) According to leamed counsel apDearing for She petitioner, eariier order dated 30-6-2006 (Annexure P/1) Was not given effect to the said order. The petitioner has not made any grievance for non-action on the part of the officers togive effectto the said order. 3) By this petition, the petitioner chaitenges the impugned order whereby and where under, the respondent No.4 has been posted at Patwari Haika No.23, Tifra. The petitioner is stiil working at Patwari Haika No.47, Revenue inspectorCircle, Bilha. 4) Bethatasitmay, this posting comes within thesame Revenue Inspector Cirele. The challenge ofthe leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner on t'ne ground that subsequent order dated2007 (Annexure P/3) is contrary to the earlier order dated 30-6-2006 (Annexure P/1) which was passed by the State Gbvernment, at this stage, has no merit. The petitioner having availed the posting for about one year at Bilha, cannot question thesubsequent posting of respondent No.4 at Patwari Halka No.23, Tifra whereby one Vijay Bharat Sahuworking at Patwari Halka No.23, Tifra, has been transferred to Patwari Halka No.14, Pendaria. 'vQ •a -3.- 5) The contention of the petitioner deserves tobe rejected on the ground that the employer is competent to post an employee/officer at any place in public interest and due to administraiive exigency. 6) It is well settled principle of !aw that transfer is an incident of service and it is for theemployer to decide asto where a particuiar officer/employee be posted keeping in view pubiic interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdicUQn to interfere in the transfer matter and this Courtcan interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non-competenceof aut'nority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with therutes and reguiations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place, forever byCourt orders. 7) The petitioner has not made out any case for interference by this Court in the present transfer. 8) !n view of the foregoing, thereis no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be and is accordingiy dismissed. No order as to costs. Saju Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge