PETiTiONER EIGH COURT OF CHHATTlSGikRH: BILASPUR V‘Mt Pe’fiticn 131%). 55? of 2W3 EE$PONDENTS Prakash Mam Sahu, Sio‘ Shri TD. Sam, aged abouri 46 yeara presemiy past3ci as im—charge Asas‘tami Engineer Rura! Engineering Services, Teh$il KaWer, Géstrbt Uttaf Bastar, Kanker (CG) Versus State of Chha‘ttisgar'n, through the Secretan: Panchayat and Rura! Develcgjmemj maritr-aiaya, DKS. Bhawan‘ Raipur (CG). Joint Secreiaw, Govt. of CG. Panchaya’t and Rurai Development Depar‘imen’; Raipur (CG), Coiiector, Di$triot Uttar Bastar. Kanker, Chhattisgarh‘ Chief Execu’tive Omcer, Jiia Panchayat; Uttar Bastar, Kanker {CG}. Executive 3e5re€am Prndh n M a Engineer/Member 1 Gram Sadak ‘g’Ojaua u t Kahkef (CG), fvVrK Petition under Article 226 3f the Canstituiion Gf India) 53: Hon’bia Mr. sa‘tish K. Agnihotri, J. Smt Hamida Siddiquii counsei ferthe petitiQner. $hri Aiok Barcshi: Govi Advacate fei me State, Prggant; Yo ( (Annexure Pf’i ), 2007 (Annexure P/Z‘, as Assletant Engineer; Rurai Engineering Services to Janpad Panchayat, Geedam, Di$trict Dantewara‘ cam. 0R9ER (Passed 9n 23*“ Januarygaas) ‘%% The petitioner-Was transferred from Piadhan Mantr‘i Gram Sadak, jana, Disirici Kanker to Rural Engineering Services, Kakner, on 12—1—2007 (Annexure P12) The peti‘aioner, complying with the transfer order, joined ‘r‘ne new place or” posting at Rural Engineering Services, Kanker, on 15-3-2067 Annexure 9/3}. Thereafter, the petitioner wee again transferred on 29-12— canceillng the transferred order dated ‘12—1-2007 r m V gog Learned counsel appearing for the petitionef submits that the petitioner has ioined new place of posting Le.) at Rurat Engineering Kanker, as Ass&stant Engineer on 15-3-2007, The respondents/authoriiies without noticing the fact that the petitioner has aireadyjoined new piaoe of posting pursuant to the order dated 12—1—2007, passed an order on 2:?42-2007 (Annexure Pit) canceiiing the order dated 12—1-2607 (Annexure P12) which was aiready given effect to. Thus the entire exercise is maiafio‘e exercise of power. The canceiiation after a period of 11 months itseif indicatee that there was no appiication of mind as the petitioner had aiready joined new piaoe of posting pursuant to the order dated “I 2-1 37007 (Annexure P12), 3) Be that as it may, the petitioner had aireadv spent about nine months at Rurai Engineering Services, Kanker‘ pursuant to the order dated 12—1 v2007 (Annexure P/2), The contention of the petitioner that oanoeitation of the order after a period of 11 months; estabiishes maia fide exercise of power, in the facts of the case, may not be correct There appears to 'oe iapse on the part of the officers who have not examined the facts before passing the order dated 29-1 2-2007 (Annexure Pit) The same ignorance of facts cannot support the contention of the petitioner and the petitioner has failed to prove maia tide exercise of power. The fact remains that the petitioner has atreadv worked for more than nine months at new piace of posting and thereafter the transfe r order was passed. Learned counsei has neither raised nor estabiished the other admissioie grounds Lei, non-competence of the officer passing the transfer order or vioiation of ruies and reguiations and other statutory pfOVtSlOnS. 4) Thus, in the facts of the case, no interference ts warranted. However. it is observed that the Government authorities must took into ail the facts before passing the order which has some effect on the service career of employees The petition is dismissed summarily. f Satish K. Agnihotrii Judge i ‘ Sd/-