• 9'.H t^ f-ero IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS')No.%'?c)'/2007 Petitioner .•;' : ~^y/ ^••' R&pondents '5S- ^G.K-Shrivastava, S/o Late B.N.Shrivastava, Aged about 54 years, Presently working as Sub- Divisional Officer, Dongargarh, Forest Department, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Under Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, DKSBhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 3) Shri A.R.Thakur, Asstt. Conservator of Forest, Attached Officer, Kanker, Forest Division Kanker, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA H!GH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BJLASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Wnt Petition (S)No.89i G.K. Snrivastava -Versus- State of Chhattisgarh & Others Present: Shri P. Diwakar. Sr. Advocate With Shri P.R. Patankar, Ad'/ocate: IVIiss Dipaii Pandey, Panel Lawyer: For petitioner. For the State, on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15" Februarv. 2007) SATiSH K. AGNIHOTR!. J. 1. The petitioner has impugned the transfer order dated 4 February, 2007 where-under 18 officers including the petitioner have been transferred from one place to other place in accordance with transfer poiicy in co- ordination with the Chief Minister. 2. The petitioner has chaltenged validity of the impugned order on the ground that before declaration of notification for holding Lok Sabha election at Rajnandgaon, these postings are belng made, that is not permissible. 3. Contention of the petitioner deserves to be rejected on the simple ground that any order can be passed before notification for hoiding election. The petitfoner aione has not been transferred but 17 other officers have been transferred which indicate that the order has been passed in pubiic interest. 4. Learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that there has been frequent transfers on the basis of the faet that after having spent 1 % years at Raigarh, the petitioner was transferred by order dated 14 July 2006 to Dongergarh. By this order after a period of 7 months, he has again been transferred. 5. The transfer within 7 months does not come within the pun/iew of frequent transfers. Thus, this contention also desen/es to be rejected. !t is well settled principles of lawthat transfer Is an incident ofservice and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/empioyee is *t;;:..K«i..^iy'i?-'s Bawe 'Z£ to be posted in the interest of administration and public. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in transfer matters and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of the authority is passing the transfer order, and order not being in conformity with the rules and regutations. None of the above grounds are availabfe to the petitioner. 6. No other ground was raised by the petitioner in this v/rit petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismlssed. Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.550/2007 and !.A. No.1269/2007 stand disDosed of. -- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ''^w&l^