<'.^^^ '-^•"^ ^O^X ..•a.' :ff'z y .^•'•"^•••" "?•' ^>'" ^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR VISTT PETITION ,(Sl N0. ^^i^-O OF 2009 PETITIONER ' Nandan Ram Kurre s/o Late Shri Kartik Ram Kurre, aged about 50 years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Principal at Govemment Boys Higher Secondary School, Gandai, District Rajnanclgaon (C.G), Resident of Chhuikhadan, Shyampur, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. ^§tateof Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of School Education Mantralya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDLA RESPONDENTS -.•aa« HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT^ILASPUR WRrTPETmONCS) No,5870_pf2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Nandan Ram Kurre. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTTPETmON_UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sourabh Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Sfai-i M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate forthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 22"'1 day ofOctober, 2009) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order dated 30 June, 2009 (Annexiire P/l) has been passed on account of the scheme dated 22°d April, 2009 (Annexure P/3) for posting fhe Principals of Pilot Model School. The petitioner has not made any application under the scheme and as such, the transfer ofthe petitioner is bad in law. On perusal of the transfer order, it appears that the transfer was not made on account of any scheme as stated by leamed counsel for the petitioner, but it is a routine administrative transfer as by the impugned order, 44 persons have been transferred from one place to another. It is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited nirisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competeace of authority ^-^'^'s's^. passing the transfer order and not being in confonnity 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 ofpublic intarest and administrative exigency. (See E.P-Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu and another}, Unian oflndia and cmotker v. Janardhan Debanath & another^, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kcmn' and others3 and Mohd. MasoodAhmadv. State ofU.P. & Others). Even ofherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference withthe impugned transfer order. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. Arait Sd/- atishK.Agnihotn Judge f- ' 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (2004) 4 SCC 245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007)8 SCC 150