V- © ^Sli 8SW C^\z^^ - c") S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIONrSLNO.^2- /2010. PETITIONER: Respondents .<^ '..•K:'tw'-- Aly^. ...•'' .Cx :-\ ^' ^y" ^ K. / Abdul TaUb Khan, S/o Late Nanmir Khan, Aged about 48 years, R/o Village Telaidhar, Post Bataikela, Tahsil Batauli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. versus / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Agriculture Department (Animal Husbandry) Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. / 2. Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. r 4. Collector, Ambikapur, Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ^5. B.P.Gupta, Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, Bataikela, Tahsil Batauli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILA8PUR WRIT PET1TION (S) No. 702 of2010 PETmONER : Abdul Talib Khaii. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChliattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hoii'ble Shri Satish K. Agniliotn, J. Present: SM CJ.K.Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Pane.l Law}rer for the. State/respoiidents 1 to 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 18th day of Febmar>', 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25.01.2010 (Aimexure P/l) whereby petitioner, working as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, Bataikela, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja, has been transfeiTed to Veterinary Hospital, Kerta, Balrampur. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that initially the petitioner was woi-king as Assistant Vetermaiy Field Officer, Bataikela, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja. Vide order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P/3), the respondent No. 5 who was posted at Bataikala, was transfen'ed to Basdei, Surajpur. Against the said order, the respondent No. 5 prefen-ed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 149/2009. Pm-suant to the order dated 14.1.2009, passed in the said writ petition, the respondent No. 5 made a representation to the respondent authorities. On his represeiitation, vide order dated 24.2.2009 (Aiinexure P/4), the petitioner was directed to join at Basdei, Surajpur. Against the said order- the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W,P.(S) No. 1298/2009, wherein this Court, vide order dated 15.09.2009, quashed 'fl ,.f the order dated 24.02.2009 and directed the Collector, Sargiya to reconsider the reprcsentation ofthe respondent No. 5 after hearing the petitioner and other affected employees and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the order dated 15.9.2009 passed by tliis Court, all the Assistant Veterinary Field Officers were heard and vide the iiiipugned order dated 25.01.2010 (Aimexure P/l), fhe petitioner was transferred to Vetermary Hospital, Kerta, Balrampur. Shri Rao, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed to accoiimiodate the respondent No. 5. It is further contended that without going into the merits oftfae case, the iiiipugned order has been passed. The action of the respondent authorities are malatlde, illegal and arbitraiy. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On pemsal ofthe impygtied order dated 25.01.2010, is apparent that the respondent No. 4 has coiisidered and decided the representation ofthe petitioner in accordance with law. The allegation of the petitioner that the transfer ofthe petitioner is illegal and malafide, is not supported by ; any cogent reasons. Tlie petitioner has made a selfsame statement without any basis. Thus, the said contentions deserve to be rejected. The petitioner has not impugned the transfer order on aiiy other admissible grounds i.e. lack of competence of tlie officer passing the order, or violation ofstatutory mles or regulations. It is a trite law that transfer is an incidence ofservice. The Court should not interfere with the transfer order unless there is a malice, intringement ofstatutory mles and regulations or lack ofcompetence of tiie officer, passing the order. In the case on hand, the petitioner has ^^^^, ^^ A-- Amit B 7. failed to establish any ofthe aforestated groimds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the itistance ofthe employer in public interest and administrative exigency. 'Tlius, the impugned transfer wairants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and anothe^, Shilpi Bose (h4rs.) and others v. State ofBihar & another^, State ofM.P. cmd another v. S.S.Koiirv and others3, Mohd. MasoodAhmad v, State of U.P. & Others4 Chief Commercicd Manager, South Central Railwcy, Seamderabad & Others \\ (1 Ratnam & Others aiid Airports Aiithority oflndia v. P^ajee\>Ratan Pandey & Others6). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, there is no merit in fhe case and is accordmgly dismissed at tlie motion stage itself 1 Sd/- 1 SatishK.Agnihotri 1 Judge 11974(4)3cc 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007)88cc 150 5 (2007)83cc 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337