BE?IW s- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Sl No. 1 //^->f /2010 PETITIONER ,_0 )0..^^ ^%:^f£? '-:-"^i~.JI\20J-0"""' ^•••-<^-*^\'?..^ ...^"^y^-"' RESPONDENTS Bhupendra Kumar Dhruw, S/o. Kaliram Dhruw, aged about 35 years, Occupation- Patwari, Posted at Block and circle - Bemetar, Halka No. 26, Tahsil - Bemetara, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Tahsildar, Tahsil - Bemerata, Distt.- Durg (G.G.) WRIT PETITION UNTO^RARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH GOURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1<^ of2010 Petitioner BhupCTidraKumarDhruw Vereus Respondent State of ChhatUsgarh &another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTtTUTION OF INDIA (38 : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate for the pefitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passedon1st DayofApril.2010) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 8-3-2010 (Annexure P/1), passed by the TahsiMar, Bemetara, District-Durg (C.G.) i.e. respondent no. 2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order wes passed by the Tasiidar in an illegal and arbitrary marmer ohiy to harass the petitioner. Learned counsel (urther submite that the petitioner has not received the transfer order and second, under the ravenue cirouiar the Patwari cannot be changed from one circle to othercircle. 3. On the other hand, leamed counsei for the State while supporting the impugned order submits that the same has been passed in the pubtic interest as we!l as on the basis of administraflve odgency. : 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Non-receipt of transfer order may be on account crf loss of document in the process, hcwever, the patitioner has received ttie order dated 8-3-2010 and on the basis of which tha present petitionhas been filed. , ' 5. Submission of the petitioner is contrary to the well-settled principle-of Saw that if there is any violation of any executive instructions that may not be the ground for interfering with the transfer/posting order. 6. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petttiener has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The 7. 8. employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in pubtic interest and administrative exigency. Further, U is for the Government to post another person if any wacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, tha impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and anothef^, Shifps Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State ofBiiiar & anothe'^, Stats of M.P. and another v. -S.S.Ko'jry snd ofte.'s^, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others4 Chief Commercial Manager, South Cenfra/ Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Offier^ and Airports Authority of Sndia '/. Rsjsev Ratan Pandsy & Other/). Applying the weli-settied principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Arun Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge