? \NOO¢ sad wmanauoz Zokmwxw mag r3 wwwgmmvwSmob .g ma Qrwgwmb» mmwa mUeSH m$ u~$Hm .vmos0E5£HmmwHUWSwQH ‘Hmgm QHmBOQvSm wowHQ Wwpmvdh W\o mbmw? wmEHEH ambmigm UHmSAo , . 7 { ‘ .. wwhg) HwmQEN Hmmwnmbm mH<Emmm mb. omggww wmwcw amWmm8‘ Uwmqwowwmmwugw 6.0L“ <mUWww . OwUmEmmwHU NSwQW amgm Qawabonqom wowanrwQ\_mwo Zaé _ mrmEa Zwmwa wmwwsd AQQ. gaosmwggwmgw Uwaawaoa mwaWaggwmwb mmbc :Nowmb‘gwb Owrwgmmmaw \Hmgwg amgm QHmHboQv5m wOmHn mq\mmc 29a mSmbS ZwmmH. Wmpwg, A O M Q ; . a y . ‘ ‘ v . U wwwww \ OHGwwmxmnmmwlg \ . V, agdcmw wmoaagava QHwEOQuSW UwvmHABQ‘: UWm wvwémbv WEwC AOQ V \1. \ EwHH wHQAHAQZ H4WHN>W€HOFMm NN¢\NN.N Om.awnw >wwwOwa>HH UHNMQHHOZ UH” QHéOZmaux—,0 w w @v a wmwa wm 5 G w IGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR iff- Single Bench: Hnn’hle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. No. 2658 of 2006 Pefifianer Mada“ L91 Pmjapati Respondents : Chhattjsgarh Khadi ’l‘atha Gramodyog Board and athcrs Versus; Shn' K. M. Ansari, Advocate for the patitioner. Shri M. K. Hhadnri, Advncatf: far the raspondants No. 1 am! 2. Shri Ajay Dwixmdi, Pane] lawyer fnr the respondent No.3. QEDER a wr$eptembggi 2006) 1. The petitioner was apgyinted Vida cmier dated 30.4.1981 (Annemlm PIQ). One nf the conditions 01" his apynintment mrier was that the petitioner can he posted anywhere in the erstwhiie State 0f Madhya Pmdesh in pnhiin interest The Managing Direcfor of the Pmard, passed i'ha onier tinted 25.4.2006: {Anne-5mm P] 1), transfehing the peiitione'r from head nihce Raipnr m Bans Kala Kendra, Jagiaipur (inf: to the administrative nxigancy. The petifioner has challengad the impugned order on the gmnnd that this order is malafide as the Chaiman 0f the Hoard himsntf has initiated the pmcess of transfer of the petitioner from one place to other place. 2. Having heard teamiéd connsei for the parties and having penised the record; this Court is of the opinion that the Chairman of the Roani is fimy compatent to post its ompioyee in the public interest and in ariministrative exigency at any plane. Initiation of the procoadings by Chairman dons not. make out. a case of malatide nxeroise. of powers. Hence the icontention of the petitioner that this transfer order was paased in exercise of maiafide intention is misconceived and rejected. r ‘ y ; >1 . It is well settled principle O'Haw that transfer is an incident of service and if is for the: Hmplnyer to decide as m where a particular o'mce1~[e1np10yae he posted keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Crmrt has limited jmisdiction t0 interfere in tlie hansfer matter and this (hurt can infmfera nnly in the case nfpmved malafide; non-mmpetence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer ordar nnt being in conformity with the rnies and reguiaiion& In the pmsenf case none of fhe above grounds are available to the yetifionan . In View of the foragoing, this; petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Thakur Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l