£gw$ $§nwe Beimh @ PETITIONER BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR , (“5-) 55KB WRIT PETITION (S) NO. IN THE HON’ [2009 : /[. R. SAHU, Slo Late Shri B. R. Sahu Age about 50 Years, Working as 39% Accountant Commissioner in the Tribal Office Development of Assistant ’ Durg, R/o Jawahar Nagar, Dhamda Road, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS L State of Chhattisgarh, Through _ Its Secretary, Department of I Adiim Jati & Other Back Ward Class, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 1 Commissioner, Tribal a“ Deveiopment, Office at Pt. Ravi Shanker University Campus Raipur (C.G.) giw Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Distt: Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF INDIA. g_‘__#_.————— , / @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETiTlON (S) NO.5568 OF 2009 (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Honlble Shri Satish K. Agnihotti, J. Present:— Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate appears on behalf cf Shri Yogesh Pandey, ccunsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORD R L (Passed on this 25‘ day of September, 2009) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. The grievance of the petitioner, in this petition, is that the petitioner was transferred by order dated 30-6-2009 (Annexure —- P14) from Integrated Tribal Project, Rajnandgaon to the ofnce of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Durg. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Durg, by order dated 31 -7-2009 (Annexure —- Pi7) posted him at Higher Secondary School, Bhainsbod, Block Development Doundi, District Durg. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the second posting is a transfer order and, as such, within a period of one month the petitioner could not have been transferred. 4. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned order on legally petmissiblegrounds except the afore-stated ground. 0n perusal, it is found that in PETITIONER LR. Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others -4“ i @ the first order dated 30-6.2009 place of posting of the petitioner was not given and he was sent to the office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribai Development, Durg. Thereafter} as a matter of regular practice the posting order is given by the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 31-7-2009 and, as such, it cannot be heid that the second posting. order is a transfer order. There is no illegaiity or infirmity in the order. The same is just, proper and does not warrant any‘ ' interference of this Court. 5. Be that as it may, it is weil-settied principle of law .that transfer/posting of an employee is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved male tide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. (See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey 8: Others‘). There is no challenge to the impugned order on the ground of breach of statutory provisions or male fidet This is not a case where any permissibie grounds as stated above has been raised. 6. Thus, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself; /f,n r ‘ sdl— r Judge Gowri 1 (2004) 12 SCC 299