HIGH COURT OE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLESHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J, WRITPETITIONfS) 2117 of2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS '€ ^ a^: 1. Rajesh Kumar Bhoi S/o Shri Shiv Shanker Bhoi, aged about 33 years, residenf of Village Chhptemari/Post Basna Tahsil BasnaDistrictMahasamund(C.G,). 2. Kumari Hemlata Bhar D/o Shri Mokhar Sai Bhar, aged about 23 years, resident of Village and Post Raytum, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) 'VERSUS : • - , 1. The State of Cbhattisgarfa, Ifarough the Secretary, Department of Scliool Education - Mantalaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila , PanGhayat, Mahasamund District Mahasamund, (CG). 3, The Cfaief Executive OfFicer, Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund (CG). . , • . 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna District Mahasamund (CG). 5. Block Education Officer, Mahasamund(CG). i 6. Block Education Officer, Basna (CG). : . ' ; ' 7. The Head Master, Govemment > Poorva Madhyamik Shala Birkoni Distiict Mahasainund (GG). 8. The Head Master, Govemment Poorva Madhyamik Shala Bansula y,BlockBasna(CG). Present; Smt. RenuKoGhar.Advocateforthepetitioners. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State / respondents 1; 5,6,7 aad 8; ORDER ;S (P^sed on 5m ofApril, 2007) -& The petitioners are working as Shiksha Karmi Grade II and posted at Government Girls Middle School Birkoni, and Govemment Middle School, Bansula, in District Mahasamund, respectively. By order dated 26.( (Annexure P/7), fhe petitioners were transferred to Oovemment New Middle School Bansula, Block Basna and Goverament New Giris Middle School Birkoni, Block Mahasamund, respectively, on niutual basis. Subsequenfly, vide order dated 03.03.2007 (Aimexure P/l), fhe place of posting of the petitioners were interchanged and the petitioner no. 1 was Iransferred to the place ofpetitioner no. 2, and the petitioner no. 2 was transferred to the place ofpetitioner no. 1, within the same district by the Ghief Executive OfBcer, Jila Panchayat, Mahasamund. The petitioners have filed this petition impugning the order oftransfer on the ground that'the petitioners had earlier been transferred six months before vide order dated 26.09.2006. The impugned order cannot be passed as the earlier order was passed on the basis of mutual understanding between both the petitioners. ; This impugned order does not amoun&yto transfer in tme sense as the impugned order places persons from orie school to other sehool in the same district. Even otherwise, the petitioners are not questioningthe transfer on any pther legally available gEcmnd except that the earlier order was passed six montlS before, on mutual understandinj between the petitioners and the parents of both the pefitioners are suffering from serious ailments. Atnit . "•-<h^ .4. If%^eU^settledprincipleo£lawffiatttaiisferisanincident SofserviGe'^aiid it is fer the employer to dscide asto.here a particula^ oflTCeB'employee^beiqpo^d, keeprig m TO^ public 'interest as well as adminutrative exigency. TKis CcmrtAat;limited jumdiction fe^nteifere in the traa matter and this Court canAnterfere onlv in-feecases of^ proved malafide, non-cpmpetence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in confonnity with the rules andregulations. ' In view offhe foregoing, this petition stands dismissed.No order as to costs. u- Sd/- SatishK. Judge