-^ SlngleBenoh \ sr^r^ zj@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0....^.^'..^./2009 1^ PETITIONER x^ , ^€^/ ••^••\;^'\^'' '^•ww ?^^)<>^ .^?\^.> •??"" 'y RESPONDENTS ^Qr. H.P. Diwedi S/o Shri Sant Das Diwedi, aged about 53 years working as Manager Government Poultry from Kondagaon Dist. Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary/under secretary, Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) Department Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2; The Director, services of veterinary Doctors, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Joint Director, Services of veterinary Dist. Office Jagdalpur Dist. Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5319 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Dr: H.P.Diwedi. VERSU8 State ofChhattisgai-h & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agiuhotri, J. Prescnt: Sliri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shi'i M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate forthe State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 17tn day of September, 2009) The petitioiier challenges the legality and validity ofthe impugied transfer order dated 29A June, 2009 (Annexure P/l) from Kondagaon, District Bastar to Veterinary Hospital. Sukma. Dantewada. The petitioner relies cn clause 3 oftransfer policy dated 1 1th Januaiy, 1984 (Amiexure P/4) and farther the circular dated 20.10.2005 (Amiexure P/5) wherein it is provided that if an employee has worked for a period offive years or xiiore in a scheduled area- he may be coiisidered for transfer and posting at a place ofhis choice. Slm Patel flirther submits that the petitioner has worked for more than five years in a scheduled area, even then he has been transfeiTed to another scheduled area. Accordmg to the aforestated govemment policy, he may be transfeiTed to any other general area. Shri Bhatia, leamed Deputy Govermnent Advocate submits that the petitioner has neither expressed his willingness nor sought for transfer from scheduled area to a general area, but has prayed that he must be allowed to remain at his present place ofposting, which itselfis a scheduled area. It is well-settled principle oflaw that transfer is an mcidence 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 the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the mles and regulations. (See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & OthersJ andMoM FirozKhan v. State ofC.G. & Others2}. The petitioner camiot claim it as a matter of right to remain at a particular place forever. It is for the Goveiimient to transfer and post an employee keeping in view the public interest and admimstrative exigency. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order cn any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, and as such, no interference is warranted. 7. For the reasons as aforementioned, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Airiit 1 /-(2004)12 SCC 299 ' 2008 (2) CQLJ 143