1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIU\SPUR rc.G.) WRIT PETITION (S} N0. ^91^ OF 2011 ^ PETITIONER : 1^1) ' l^^l^^^ ^^^" 'ff^^" ^^ RESPONDENTS Rikhiram Janghel, S/o Late Gendlal Janghel, aged about 54 years, R/o Village Tappa, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Ayurved, Yog & Naturopathy/Unani an Homeopathy, Raipur(C.G.) Ayurved Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ 3. District ^ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHMATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETIT10N (S) N0. 69860F 2011 Rikhiram Janghel Vereus State of Chhattisgarh & Others F ! 0/Vrit Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bleShriSatishK.Agnihotri, J. Present;- Shri Anup IVtajumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. QRDER (Passed on this 25m day ofNovember, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge legality and validity of the transfer order dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner, working as Compounder in Government Ayurved Hospitai Nedha, District Rajnandgaon, has been transferred to Government Ayurved Aushdhalay. Badbhum, District Durg, on administrative grounds, dujyapproved by the Chief Minister. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the transfer policy dated 13.(NS.2011,the Class-IK & Clas»-IV employees cannot be transferred oirt of Distrtet. The transfer order has been passed during the ban periodalso. The seniority ofthe petittoner also gets affected as no order has been passed fw maintaining his seniority in other District. Learned eounsel further subnnits that the pefttioner is a patient of diabetes and blood sugar and the transfer order has been issued in the mid^ession, which seriously affects the studies of his children. Thus, this petition. Apart from the above, the petitionerhas not chaltenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legai ground i.e. matafide, violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the offlcer, passing the innpugned order. Contention ofthe learned counsel fwthe petitioner is that the seniority of the petitioner would be affected, as the same is not stated in the transferorder to the effect that his seniwity would be maintained in other district aiso. No specific documents have been produced or pleadings have been made asto after transfer, he wiH be placed at down below or his seniority would be maintained. On mere selfsame statement, it cannot be inferred that his seniority would be disturbed. By not stating anything about the maintenance of the seniority in the impugned order, it does not iead to conciusion that his seniority wouid be affected. Thus, this contention is rejected for want of proper pleadings and documents. ashoh: 6. 8. 2 Transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 has already been opened by the subsequent circular dated 08.08.2011, wherein. in case of urgency and administrative exigency, transfer of an employee can be made on approval by the Chief Minister in co-ordination v^th the Chief Secretary. Thus, it cannot be held that the order has been passed in violation ofthe transfer policy. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an inGidenee of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement ofstatutory rules and regulations.In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and adminjstrative exigenGy. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancY arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the jmpugned order warrants no interference. (See £<P-f?oy-^opav. Stete of Tamil Nadu andanoffie^ Shilpi Bose (Mfs.) andoffiers v. State ofBihar & anothei2, State ofM.P. andanottierv. S.S.Kourv and offiers3, Mohd. Masood Ahmadv. StateofU.P. & Offiens4 Chief Commwc^al Manager, South Cenfra/ Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratrsam & Others9 and Afrports Authority of Indla v. RajeevRatan Panctey&Offiers6). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and Tor the reasons mentioned hereinabpve; there is no merit in the case. Accordiogly, the writ petition is dismiss^d. i.,. ^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 11974(4)8cc 3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995)38cc 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007)8800212 6 (2009)880c 337