HEGE CGURT OF CHEAT'TISGARH AT BRASWJR WRIT }’ET1T{ON (SE N0. 4433 ofZOOS {Chhattisgarh} U). h. PE’I‘I’I‘lO‘NER : Smt, Sumitra Tiwari Age — 5G Years? W/o Shn’ Ramkumar Tiwari by Post P.T.I. Teacher, at prasent posted at Govt. Higher Secoadary Girls Schoo! at Mahasamund, R/G N&ar Girls Schoo} at Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPGNDENTS : 1. The State ofC.G. 'I‘hrough the Secretary Degartment 0f Schooi Education D.K.S Mantralaya — Bhawan, Raipur, Dist‘L Raipur (06.) J{\ The District Education Officer, Digit Mahasamund . The Block Educatien OEmer, Block — Mahasamund, Disii. Mahasamund (Chhaitisgarh). Mandi—1211“ La} Chanm‘akm‘ Assi‘t. RTE. at presem Incharge Ass‘a. Distt. Physktai Training Giflceg Poeted at Distt. Educaticm Officer, Dist: Mahasamuild (Chhattisgarh). WRH‘ PE’I‘I‘HON UNDER ARTECLES 226 OF THE CONS'I‘ITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’me Sm swish K. Agnmomv J. Present: Shri lALohani, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunjta Jain, Pane} Lawyer for the State/respondems 1 to 3‘ ORAL ORDER (Famed en 13m éay ef August, 2608) 1. Learned counsel appearing for ihe petitioner submits that the impugned erder dated 36,06,2008 (Amexure P/l) is bad on account ofthe fact that respendent No. 4, who is working as Assistant. Physioal Training Instructor at Higher Seconéary Schooi, i’ithora, has been transferred to the piece ofposting ofthe petitioner. The petitioner has not completed two years at the present place of posting therefore, the transfer of respondent No. 4 at her place is bad in law. 2. On query, asto whether the petitioner, being the senior most, has any right to continue on the present place of‘posting, learned counsel \ appearing for the petitioner is not in a position. to inform that the petitioner has any right of continuation at the present place of nesting. %C) -g- Amit except that the petitioner has not compieted two years ‘thare, therefore, the petitioner should not be disturbed” It is weli-samed prmciple of law that transfer is an incidence of service ané it is for the empieyer i0 decide as to where a pamcuiar oi‘iicer/employee be postsd.‘ keeping in View pubiic interest as weli as admimstraiive exigency. This Court has iimited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved malaime? non- competence of authority passing ihe txansfer order and not being in eoni’onnity Wm) the miss ami reguiatioms" The contention that the petitioner has not compietee two years a1 the present piace of posting is i‘rivolous as ultimately the employer has i0 look into the public imerest and administrative exigency. This: is not foe the Court to consider the transfer oi‘the respondent No. 4 at the behest ofthe yetiiioner. The resoondent No. 4 has been iransfeared due to adminisirative exigency whereio no maiafide has men proved. With regard to the other permissible grounds Leo non-competence of the oii3cer coacemed or Vioiat’ion of staturory rules and regulations: no case hae been made out. 6. Thus, rhis petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order asto costs Consequemtly, LA. No" 1, appEication for eel-interim reiéef. aiso stands disposed of " v‘j Sdz- r Satish K. Agnihotri" Judge i o