/^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S| N0. H4<2_2- / 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 1. 2. R.K.P. Gupta S/o, Late Sadhu Sao, aged about 53 years, Asstt. Veterinary Area Officer, Veterinary Hospital Rajapur, Block- Mainpat, P.S. Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: - Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh i^3. Collector Surguja, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRITPETJTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER(S) Asmentioned in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTfSl As mentioned above in the cause title. spTITi HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR WRST PET!T!ON (S} N0. 4422 OF 2011 R.K.P. Gupta RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Saurabh Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Pane! Lawyer for the State. ORDER fORAU (Passed on this 08 day of August, 2011) 1. ChatSenge in this petition is to the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred as Assistant Veterinary Area Officer, VeSerinary Hospital Rajapur to Veterinary Hospitai Kerta, vrithin the same district Surguja. 2. The soie ground of challenge is that the petitioner is hoiding an executive ciass-11! post and as per the policy, the executive class-ili empioyee (government servant) cannot be transferred by the district teve! officer inciuding the Coiiector. In the year 2007-08, in the simiter situatlon, the State Government directed that the Assistant Veterinary Area Officer, Class-111, being executive post, cannot be transferred by the Coiiector.In support of his contention, the petitioner relies on a tetter dated 04.08.2007 (Annexure P-2), wherein the Director, Veterinary Services has wrlSen to the Secretary,Government of ChhatSisgarh, Agricuiture (Veterinary) Department, stating that the Assistant Veterinary Officer, Executive Grade-i!!, cannot be transferred on dlstrict ievei, whiSe seeking instruction from the Government. 3. On perusa! of the documents filed by the petitioner, it is nowhere stated and no document has been fiied vvhich states that the State Government has accepted recommendatlon made by the Director, Veterinary Ser/ices, on 04.08.2007 (Annexure P-2). Thus, the same cannot be he'd as binding or final. 4. The petitioner, thereafter.-has made a representation on 02.08.2011 (Annexure P-4) statina the same, which !t appears to be pending conside.ration. The cireuiar dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure P-3) has .been brought to the notice of the Court, whereunder, the Coilector, ashok 7. Surguja, has written to ail the head of the department within the district that non-executive class-i!! and class-!V employees may be considered for transfer in pubiic interest, if they are posted for a long period and the proposai must be submitted at 30.06.2011, nothing can be made out from the circuiar in respect of the executive class-1!! emolovees. On perusa! of the transfer po!icy, it is not ciear asto whether policy is different for ciass-!!' executive post from ciass-lli non-executive post. T'nus, ! don't find any infirmlty or irregularity in the transfer, as the transfer order was passed in accordance with the policy dedsion after proper approval from the minister in-charge. There is no chalienge on any other !ega! ground i.e. malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulationsor non-competence ofthe officer, who passed the order. For the reasons msntioned hereinabove, it is well settled principles of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particuiar officer/empioyee be posted, keeping m view public interest as well asadministrative exigency. This Court has limited iurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Madu a"d anothei1, ShilpiBose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothei2, State of M.P. and anotherv. S.S.Kourv and others , Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. Stateof U.P. & Oihers Chsef Commercial Manager, South Central RaiSway, Secuncterabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Aiithoriiy of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others^. Applying the well-settied principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. Accordingiy, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- -Satish K- Judge ;tn ~'1974(4)SCC3 2 (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 8 (200g) 8 SCC 337