3/ singk Bench (D IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR wRrr PETITION (S) No. <HI H / 2011 I PETITIONER / Rupchand Patle'S/o. Shri Prabhu Ram Patle, aged about, 48‘ years, R/o. Dr.'Ambedkar Ward, Tilak Marg, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ' b RESPONDENTS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: > — Secretary, z Department of School Education, D.K.s. Bhawan, Raipur (ca) Welfare Department, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) / 2. Secretary, Tribal 3. Collector Bilap sur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) / 4. Block Education Officer, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.‘) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA @K HIGH COI IRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT RH .ASPI IR WRIT’PETXTION (S) No. 5414 of2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TI-E CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Samabh Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. 0 R I) E R (Passed on 27']; day of September, 201 1) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/ 1§ whereby: the petitioner, working as Upper Division Teacher and Sankul Incharge, Middle School, Fandwani, Block Mungeli, has been transferred to Middle School, Bijrakachhar, Lormi, on administrative grounds. Shri Dangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the elected Secretary of Chhattisgarh Shiksha Sangh and as per the circular dated 19.08.1994 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner could not have been transferred hom his present place of posting as there was exemption nom transfer for two tenures. Shri Dangi further submits that the petitioner has not completed 2 1/2 years of service at his present place of posting thus, under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011, thus, the transfer is bad. On the other hand, Shri Sao, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the circular dated 19.08.1994 (Annexure P/3) has been superseded by circular dated 24.06.1996, wherein it. is specifically mentioned that only the State and District level oErce bearers viz. the President and Secretary would be immune horn being transferred for a. period of only three years. The petitioner is a block level secretary and does not fall within the category, as specified in the circular dated 24.06. 1996. On perusal of the circular dated 24.06.1996, it is clear that the Secretary of a recogrized union of State or District level alone is exempted hom being transferred. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is holding the post of Secretary of Chhattisgarh Shiksha PETITIONER : Rupchand Patle. VERSI IS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. (éé Sangh, at. block level only. The circular dated 24.06.1996 supersedes the circular dated 19.08.1994, thus, the petitioner is not entitled to exemption on the basis of the circular dared 19.08.1994. So far as completion of 2 V2 years at his present place is concerned, the same is not mandatory, but discretionary as clause 4(1) of the transfer policy states that an employee may be transferred if he has completed 2 1/2 years of service at one place but the same does not prohibit from transferring an employee before completion of 2 1/2 years of service at one place. 5. The petitioner has not challenged the impugied order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. malafide, violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order. 6. It. is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular onicer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court. has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post. an employee at a. particular place in View of public interest. and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another’, Union aflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anatherl, Stare ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and otherf and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others"). 7. In View ofthe above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. _ l Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotri Ann Judge 1 2 (1 974) 4 soc 3 3 (2004) 4 soc 245 (1 995) 3 soc 27o 4 (2007) 8 soc 15c