HON'BLES. B. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS^ No. ^^^) ^ / 2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Santram Sahu, S/o Lt. Shri Jeevrakhan Sahu, Aged about 52 years, Post- Assistant Engineer, Posted at Chhattisgarh State Krishi Vipnan Board, Divisional Office, Raipur, C.G., R/o Hariohm Bhavan, Tarun Nagar, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS ^' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, D.K.S. Building, Ministry, Raipur, C.G. 2.<Chhattisgarh State Krishi Vipnan Board , Through its Managing Director, Beej Bhavan, Ravigram, Tetibandha, Raipur, C.G. 3. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Krishi Vipnan Board , Beej Bhavan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur , C.G. 4. Joint Director, Chhattisgarh State Krishi Vipnan Board, Djvisional Office, Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'HIGH COIJ'RT OF CHHATTISCTARH AT BIIASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6644 of2011 PETITTONER RESPONDENTS Sahii. VRRSIJS ofCfahattisgarh Sc Others. WRIT PE'I'mON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS'IITUnON OF IND3A SB: Hon'We Shri Satisi-i K. Agnihotri, .1. Present: Shri Alok Dewanpan, Advocate 'forthe petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemmenl Advocale .for the Slale. Shri Y.S.Thaiair Advocate for '&e respondent N0= 2 to 4. O R D E R (Passed on 14th day ofNovember, 2011) 1. Challenge in -this petition is to the order dated 18.10.2011 ('Aimexure P/l) wherebv -tfae petitioiier, workmg as Assi^tant at Raipiir, has been •traiisferred to Di^ict Dhamtari aiid District Kaisker, and flirfeer. &e order dated 31.10.2011 (Aimexiire P/l-A) wfaerebv tii^ petitioner.has been relieved to iom his new place ofpo^ting, 2. . Shri Dew^ngen, ieamed coimsel fbr •the petitioner siibmite lliat the impugned order dated 18J0.2011 (Aniiexiire P/l) wa.s passed wit.hom speoifvmg fhe place of postmg as 'two pla^es have been showu m 'fee order. ft is next siibmitted tha:t, the petitioiier's daughter is pursuisg her B.E. 6 semestsr and one son is also stndying m school, lliiis, llie m;rtant transfer order woiild affect their stiidies. The petitioner is siiffermg from. various aiiments, tmis, fhe impu^ied 'iraiisfer order may be qiiashed. 3, On the other hand- Shri I^hakiir, coiimel appearinp for 'the respondent No. 2 to 4 siibmits. fhat 'there is no confiision m the pla^e of postmg of the petitioiier a.s Ihe petitioner is being 'iTaiisferred as Assistant Eiigiiieer to look tfae work of Di^rict Dhamtari a.s well as District Kaaker, HowevCT, his salary wmild be pavable from 'the office of Di^rtrict Dhamtari. Shri TMkur &rtli.er siibmits that 'the contention ofthe petitioner that there is i^ post of '"^ ^? ^ .•'^^^. r '^L-SSff^ I. Amit A^sist^iit Enpineer a.va.ilable in District Dhamtari. is also not correct as fhe post indicated in the order 19.08.2011 (Amiexiire p/2) is on fhe division-wise and not digtrict-wise. DiMrict Dhamtari imderthe Raipiir Division where tliere a-re 10 posis of Assi^tant Engmeer aiid the petitioner has been posted agaimt fee va-caiit po^. available at Raipir Division. Tiiiis, ttiere is no infirmity m 'the impiigned' order and the same ha.s been pa.ss-ed by a comnetent officer. 4. The petitioner has not challe?iged Ihe impii@ied transfer order on any other permissible legal groimd i.e. malafide, "violaiion of any ^tatirtory niles or regi.ilatioAis or lack of comDet.ence of'the ofBcen pa.ssiiig the impugned order, 5. It is well-setrled 'that Iransfer is an mcidenee of service and it is fbr 'the einplovCT to decide asto wfaere a. particular officer/emplovee be posted, keepiug m view public interest as well as a.dmim^trative exigency and here sho'ald not be any interfereiice with the a.dmitiistrative fimction oftiie GovemmeDt. \ 6. This Coiirt has limited jiirisdictioB to iiit.erfere with fhe •trensfer matter except m the cases ofproved malafide, iion-competeiice of airihority passing 'the transfer wder not bemg in coiiformily with fhe mles and regalations. The petit.ioiier/emploYee camiot be pemiitted to remam a:t one place fbrever. IJiider ttie provisions of service niies, eniploYer has a-11 tlie powers to po^t an emplovee at a panicular place in view of public aAiiim^trative exigency, (See E.P.Royappa v. State orTcmiilNadu and anothe^, Unian of^ India cmd another v,. Janardhan Debcmath Sc anotker2, State ofM.P. cmd another v. S.SXaurav and other^ and Mohd. MasoodAhmadv. Sfateofu.P. &0thersf). 7. In 'view of tiie above. th@ writ petiticm is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1(1S74)4SCC3 2 (2004)43cc 245 ' (1995)33cc 270 4(2007)8.SCC150