^-.s u;-v-' /f " .i iZ'" tt'K, it''*^-?,"'^^ .': ^WWk^ 'SK.KV-M ^ \' (.ST^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.l WRIT PETITION fS) N0. OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS: ^ 1 .-^. /^/ A x-^y^ ^y ^/^^ .rl^'V rA'o- Gorelal Sahu, son of Ghaduram Sahu, aged about 44 years, resident of Koyada, Village & Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District RaipLir, Chhattisgarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh: TKrough: the Secretary, Department of Panchayat Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Chief-Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Chief-Executive Officer, Janpad ^ Panchayat, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Hemant Kumar, son of Thari Chandra Sahu, vide president Janpad Panchayat, Baloda Bazar, Ctihattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. . PARTICULARS OF TME PETITIONER As gi^/en in the cause title. ^ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1678 OF 2011 Goreiai Sahu RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Slngle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashok Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. ORDER fORAU (Passed on thls 30th day of March, 2011) 1. Heard learned counse! for the parties. 2. Chailenge in this pefition is to the transfer order dated 10.03.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Viltage Panchayat - Changori to Village Panchayat - Mudagaon, Janpad Panchayat - Mainpur. 3. The sole contention of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order is that the petitioner has been transferred to Village Panchayat - Changori to Village Panchayat - Mudagaon, Janpad Panchayat - Mainpur, which is situated at a distance of 300 kms from the present place of posting. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and if the Impugned order is executed, the petitioner shall suffer irreparably. Except the iforesaid contention, no other legally permisslbie ground has been raised bythe petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there Is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner ^^i^ 5. 2 has faiied to estabiish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person If any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an emptoyee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, Shilpi Base (Mrs.) and others v. State ofBihar& anothsri, State ofM.P. and anotherv. S.S.Koun,' and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Otheis" Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Raihvay, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & 0 ere and Airports Aufhority ofindia v. Rajesv Ratan Pandey & Others). Applying the well-settled principles of iaw to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition Is dismissed. Sd/- ^^r' ^ ashc.k { 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SGC 659 3 (1995)33cc 270 's (2007)88cc 150 5 (2007)88cc 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337 '