i3?.» >'-t .fc BttS^! n IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition(S) N0. $£-53> /2009(S.B.) '•S!f PETITIONER y- ,^^^' 'ft^-'' VERSUS S.R. Rajput S/o Late Shri Kunj Ram Rajput, Aged about 59 years, Workiag as Assistant Superintendent in the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Though Secretary Department of Revenue D.K.S.Bhawan Reupur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2) The I'resident, Bosird of Revenue Chhattisgarh BUaspur (C.G.) 3) The Collector, BUaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER AKTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA J^t H1GH CQURT OF CHHATriSGARH: BILASMR PETn-tONER RESPOND6NTS WRrT PETITION (S) NO.S653 OF 2009 S.R. Rajput Verais State of Chhattisgarh & Others ^Vrit petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agaihotri, J. Present:- Shri Bharat Rajp.it, couireet forthe prfitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyerfor the State. 1. 2. 3. 4. ORDERfORAU (Passed on this 5" day af October, 2009) With the consent of leamed counsel appsaring for the pariies, the petition is heard finally. By this petition, the petittoner prays for quashing ofthe order dated 13-8-2009 (Annexure - P/3) whereby tha petttioner has been transferred from Bilaspur to Jagdalpur and the order dated 19-9- 2009 (Annexure - P/8) passedby ths Chairraan, B(»rdof Revenue whereby the representation subinitted by the petitioner has been rejarted. The petitioner, who te working asan Assistant Superintendent.Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, was transferred by order dated 13-08-2009 (Annsxure P/3) to Cirouit Court, Jayialpur. Being aggriteved bythe said oider, the petitioner preferred a petition being Writ Petitton (S) No.4688/2009 before thisCourt. After hearing the petitioner at length, vide order dated 26-8-2009 (Annexure-P/6),disposed ofthe writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation within a periodoften daysfrom the date of recei(rt of the copy ofthe order, and thereafter, the same would be decidedwithin a period of three weeks from the dateof Hs receipt. Till then the irapugned order shall not be given effect to and the petitioner would beallowad to perform his duties in his present place of posting. In complianceof the orderdated 26-8-2009 (Annexure-P/6), the petitionwsubmitted a representation to the respondent airthorities on 2-9-2009 (Annexure-P/7). The Chairman, Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, after haying considered all the aspects of the matter 5. 6. 7. 8. Tumane 2. Including the transfer policy wherein it is provided that in nonnal cases, the pereon who is going to be reUred within a pwiod of one year ooutd not be transferred to any other ptace, rqected the representation ofthe petitioner stating that the transfer was made in administratwe exigency. So far as the transfw order dated 13-08-2009 (Annexure - P/1) is concerned, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same ground, as the same was atready cqnsiderect-by this Court in W.P.(S) N0.4688/20)9 in ite ordw dated 26-8-2008. However, the order passed by the respondent authorities against his tepresentation may be challenged. 1 have heard leamed counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. I found that there fe no irregulanty or itlegality in the order as the transfer poltoy is mere guidelines, it does not assume ttie character of statuto»y rules and regutationsand, assuch, there is no br^ich of any statutory rules andr^ulations.ThepetHionerhasnotGhaltongedthetran^eroider on any Qther grounds namely; mate Me, violatwe of stetutoiy provlsions andlackof competerx^ ofthe offteer. There is no illegality or infiimity in tha order. The same is just, preper and does not warrantany intBFfetence ofthis Court. Be that as it may, it is well-settled prineiple (rflsw that transfer/ posting of an employee is an incidence of service and It is fer the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in VWM publfc interest as well as aiminisfrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved mala ffcte, non-competence pf authorfty passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. (See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Praaad Pandey & Others ). This is not a case where any permissible grounds as stated abeive has been raised. Thus, this petition being devoid of merit is dfemissed a> the motion stage-itself. Sd/-, SatishK.Agniiiotri "Judge 1 (2004)12800 288