HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER Writ Petition (S) No. 3525 of2008 : H.R. Baghel; aged about 47 years, S/o Shri Dban Sai Baghel, working as Chief Executive Officer at Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur; District Raipur (CG). R/o Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG). VER8US RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department ofPanchayat & Rural Development, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Shri Yadubeer Ram, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSlTrU'riON OF INDIA) (8B: Honfble Mr. SatishK. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri R.K. Kesarwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 08tb day ofJuly, 2008) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. The petitioner, while working as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District Raipur (CG), has been transferred m the same capacity to Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Durg, on administrative ground. 3. Leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner challenges the validity of the transfer order dated 30.06.2008 (Annexure P/l) on fhe ground that the petitioner is a victim of trequent transfers. He farther submits that the petitioner was transferred on 10.05-2006 and before the last transfer i.e. 30.08.2007, he was transterred as many as four times i.e. on 09.06.06 and 26.06.07 and lastly on 30.08.2007. 4. The petitioner has not challehged the transfer orders passed eariier on account of frequent transfers or otherwise. The last transfer of the petitioner was 30.08.2007 and the present impugned transfer order has been pasxsed on 30.06.2008 i.e. after a period of 10 months. Thus, it is not a case of frequent transfers. Even, if it is considered as frequent transfer, that may not be suftlcient reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order which was passed alongwith 18 more persons. •^'^ ^ Saliu 5. Transfer is an incident ofsendce and it is fbr the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can intertere only in the case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place, forever, by Court orders. At this stage, it is not necessary to examine validity ofthe transfer. 6. It is well settled that the transfer order can be interfered only in case of lack of competence of the ofiicer passing the order of transfer, violation of statutory provisions and malafide. The scope of interference in the transfer matter of an employee is limited; The petitioner has not made out a case for showing interference with the transfer on the above stated permissible grounds, thus, the petition is devoid ofmerit. The petition is dismissed summarily. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge