MIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARK AT^RjLASpUR WRiT PETiTlON (S) No. OF 2011 ^ Petltioner Versus Respondent iyashankar Shuk'a State of Ch'nattisgarh & Others fWnt Petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of indis) (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State. 3. 4 (Passed on this 29th day of April, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the iegality and validity ofthe order dated 25.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed bythe Divisional Forest Officer, Raipur, by which the petit'ioner has been posted at Fingeshwar Forest Range, unti! further orders. The maln challenge to the impugned order is that the petitioner's wife is working as Upper Divlsion Teacher in Boys Middle School, Gariysband, as such, the petitioner cannot be transferred and thst too, the impugned order has been passed during the mid session. As a resu't of whlch, the chiidren of the petitioner shaii suffer irreparabie ioss.. Except the aforestated contention; no other legaily permissibie around has been ralsed bv the petitioner. Even, the petitioner has neither raised nor proved any malafide or lack of competence of 'the officsr oassina the imDug.ned transfer order. 3e that as it may, it !s a trite law that transfer/posting Is an sncidence of servics. The Court shouid not interfere with the transfer/postlng order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and reauiatlons. !n the case on hand, the petltioner has failed to ^ s. estabtish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in publie interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on accouni of transfer/posting of an empfoyee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interferencs. (See E.P.Royappa v. Stata ofTamil Nadu and another, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and othe.'s v. State of & anothei^. State of M.P. and anQther v. S.S.Kourv and others1. Mahd. Mssood Ahmad y. State of U.P. & 0 ers Chief Commercia! Manager, South Centrai Raiiway. Secundsrabsd & Others v. G. Ratnan] & Ofts/s3 and Airports Authorjty oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Otiiers). Applying the weli-settled principles of iaw to the racts of the case on hand snd for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. ;cordina!v, the writ Detition is dismissei Sd/- Satish K. Agnihoti-i Judge (1991)3upp 2 SCC 559