HIGH COURT OF GHHATTI$$ARH AT B¥LASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3669 of 2G0? Petitianer Ajay Shankar Awawai, aged abaut 4 years, S/o. Shri R.N,Agrawal, Rio. Range Officer. Parsum East Raipur Division, Eistrici Raipur (C.G.) Respondents t. state of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary. Department of Forest. D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Conservator of Forest D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (C.G.) 3. R. N. Shauri Range Qffmer, Dhaurpur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Wn‘t Petmcn under Ankle 2261227 cf the Canstitution Of mdia Sing£e Bench : Hoa‘b!e ML Justice Satish K, Agnihotri. VeF$US Present: Shri Sunii 0iwani, counsei for the petitioner. /,.,_ x ‘A V Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Gcvt. Advocate for the respcndents NM and 2 IState. Shri $hailendra Dubey, counsel far the Caveator. QRDER (Passed on this 29‘“ day of June, 2007) (1) The petitiener, who is warking as Project Officer, being aggrieved by his transfer from Parsuri, East Forest Division Raipur to Forest Depat, Chirchari, Ferest Division, Rajnandgaen, has fried this petition on the greund that the transfer of the petitiener is effected within a period. of three months. which is contrary to the transfer poiicy dated 13m June, 2607 (Annexure P-5). Sub Clause (5) of Ciause 2 of the transfer poiicy as it prescribes that as far as possible, an empieyee be posted ei a piece for a minimum period of three years and if a transfer is made on the basis of some oompisint, the complaint has to be verified to estabiish charges. This partiouiar clause is appiicabie to the trehsfer made by Departmental Minister or State Minis er, {independent charge). it appears that by the impugned order dated 1$-06-200? (Annexure P—1) the petitioner along with 39 other officers has been transferred from one place to other piece. h). (2) The grievance cf the petitioner that it amounts to frequent transfer is not sustainabie, as frequent transfers means within a period of one or two years severai transfers have been made. Transferring of an employee within a period of three months does not come under the definition of ‘frequent transfers'. So far as transfer poiiey is concerned it is not mandatory but it is reguiatory. The Government is comoetent to post an employee in administrative exigency and in the pubiic interest. Since this order has not heen passed against the petitioner atone but 39 more ofticers have been transferred by this order, thus this order ean be held as an order based in public interest and due to administrative exigency. (3) it is welt settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee is to be posted in the interest of administration and public. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in transfer matters and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved mala tide, non-competence of the authority passing the transfer order, and order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. (4) As a result, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. l Sd/- l Karuna i Satish K.Agntimrrl V Judge