^ BEFORB THE HQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.S ^355 W.P.(S) No. Of2011 PETITIONER ^ RESPOHDENTS ^ /7.-'o\T>'1 -^^ ^•'\^v'' ...</- ^•'"..^ ..'^ /\. 2, 3 % Smt Sasikala Deshmukh w/o Pawan Desmukh aged about 47 years, Upper Division Teacher Adarsh Higher Secondry School Daundi (C.G)^ OrJ^O'r'Du/j CC^) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Tribal and welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector District Durg (C.G) Asistant Commissioner Tribal and welfare Department Durg (C.G) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCB OF. . .WRIT MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHBR APPROPRIATE WRIT. '/^^^. ^•^^^.^.ai^s'y;!.'^ ':.' •i ''^sy>" %: \..?S£^ 'v^:^s^^ /.^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR b PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4359 of2011 Smt. Sasikala Deshmukh. RESPQNDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Amn Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 05th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, working as Upper Division Teacher at Model Higher Secondary School, Dondi, has been transferred to Boys Middle School, Dondi, on administratiye grounds. 2. The sole ground of challenge to the impugned order is that the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, has no competence to transfer the petitioner. Under the policy ofthe State Govemment., it is only the Collector who can pass a transfer order. 3. On the other hand, Shri Sao, leamed Govemment Advocate submits that it is not a transfer but it is only change ofthe posting from one school to anofher school., in the same city. 4. On pemsal of the impugned traasfer order, the contention of the state counsel appears to be correct. Even in the transfer policy, there is no prohibition that the posting of an employee cannot be changed in the same city. It is in no manner a transfer as the place of posting is one and the same. Thus, the contention of the petitioner with regard to non-competence ofthe officer passing the order, is misplaced. Clause 7(5) of the transfer policy dated . -,.£"'%, , ^,y%' 13.06.2011 provides that the transfer policy would not be applicable in case ofposting ofan employee in the same city from one office to other office. Thus, in the case on hand, the aforestated transfer policy is not applicable. 5. It is always for the Govemment to decide asto where an employee shall be posted keeping in view the administrative exigency and public interest. 6. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases ofproved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the mles and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of ser^ice mles, 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 ofTamil Nadu and another1, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another , State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Koumv and others3 and Mohd. MasoodAhmadv. State ofU.P. & Others4). 7. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (1974) 4 SCC 3 2 (2004) 4 SCC 245 3 (1995)38cc 270 4 (2007)83cc 150