IN THE HON'BLE HIGH C_OURTOFLCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fSlNO. •5^3Lf / 2011 PETITIONER ^ 1. ^--' Pradeep Kuniar Saxena, S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Saxena, Aged about 55 Years, District Manager, C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund-(C.G.) C.G.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Through- The Managing Director, Hitwad Parisar, Avanti Vihar, Head Office Raipur-C.G.) Shri K.S.Shrey Dy.Manager, Head Office C.G.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Hitwad Parisar, AvantiVihar, Head Office, Raipur-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 8s 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2. tf HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5834 OF 2011 PETITIONER Pradeep Kumar Saxena Versus RESPONDENTS C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Praful Bharat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 29th day of September, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge-the legality and validity of the order dated 14-9-2011 (Annexure - P/1) whereby (he petitioner has been transferred from Mahasamund to Jashpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order suffers from malaise of frequent transfers, as within a period of seven years the petitioner has been transferred on several occasions. The impugned order has been passed without there being any administrative exigency and the same has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.2. Thus, this petition. 4. The grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order comes within the ambit of a frequent transfer, is not well established and not sustainable in law. There is no allegation on the part of the petitioner that there was any mala fide exercise of power or the officer has no competence to pass the impugned order and/or the impugned order is violative ofstatutory rules and regulations. 5. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee 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. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , Shilpi Bose (Mrs.).and others v. State of Bihar & anothei^, Sfate of M.P. and anofher v. S.S. Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authon'ty of India v. Rajeev Rafan Pandey & Others ). 6. Applying the well-settled principtes of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned herejnabove; there is no merit in the case. 7. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Ashok Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' 1974(4)3cc 3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995)38cc 270 4 (2007)83cc 150 5 (2007)83cc 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337