IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARHAT WRIT PETITION (Sl Vlo BILASPUR .BEI ,. ^ /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^%%/ ^oy /?''yy .ov^v?--' ^lwy 'y/j^y 3?'^i/ <1 .^f' ^«y ^' Smt. Usha Verma Aged about- 52 years W/o Shri Aseem Verma R/o PWD Colony,Dantewada District - Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS State of.Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Public works department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) / •2 Chief Engineer Public works department Bastar Circle,Jagdalpur(C.G.) ^3. Executive engineer Public works department, Bastar Division,Jagdalpur ' (C.G.) Smt. Pushplata Morla w/o B.R.Morla,Aged about- 51 years, assistant grade-II, pre.sently posted at office of executive engineer,south Bastar sub division, Dantewada(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFCONSTITUTION OF INDIA 4. 1. PARjriCULARS OF THE PETITIONER: "1') MIGH COURT OFCHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.265 OF2011 PETITiPNER Smt. Usha Verma RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present - Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 28th day of March, 20-11) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 7-1-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, by which the charge of Senior Accounts Clerk has been withdrawn from the petitioner and the same has been handed over to the respondent No.4 after posting her at Danfewada Division. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to retirement of one F.M. Singh Thakur, on attaining the age of superannuation, the charge of Senior Accounts Clerk has been given to the petitioner by order dated 30-12-2009 (Annexure - P/2) and the petitioner took the charge of thesaid post in the morith of January, 2010. However, all of a sudden by order dated 24-12-2010 (Annexure - P/3), the charge of Senior Accounts Clerk has been withdrawn from the petitioner and was handed overto the respondent No.4. Thereafter, by letter dated 5-1-2011 (Annexure P/4)-the Superintending Engineer informed the respondent No.3 that the respondentNo.4should not be given the charge ofSenior Accounts Clerk on theground that she was not working in Dantewada Division. According to thelearned counsel, the respondent authorities, instead of withdrawin-g the charge from the "1 ^ ^-s.. %^- respondent No.4, by order dated 7-1-2011 given the posting to the respondentNo.4 at Dantewada Divisionand thereafter handed over the charge of Senior Accounts Clerk. The impugned order has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner only to accommodate the respondent No.4. On perusal ofthe record, it appears that looking to the retirement of one F.M. Singh Thakur, the charge of Senior Accounts Clerk has been handed over to the petitioher. However, after publication of gradation list, looking to the seniority and experience of the respondent No.4, the charge of the post of Senior Accounts Clerk has been handed overtothe respondent No.4. In the gradation list, the name of the respondent No.4 appears at S.No.19 whereas the name ofthe petitionerfind place at S.No.28. Be that as it may, it is well-settled that posting of an employee 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 jurisdiction to interfere with such "matters except in the cases of proved ma/a fide, non-competence of authority passing the posting order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner has failed to estgbtish and prove her contentions, except making selfsame statement. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. Thus, the respondent authorities have rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference of thisCourt. In the result, the writ petitjon, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No orderasto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ai^saieffiasnaBi"" ;»fflSS2S&dfe