y.9. O'i 'Yb6^^^ ^:.%^^"^- ^.-••':^v'?^l<?"""" J''"- ' O, \ ^..^" A^O < Ksea---' ..^-.'•''"' 3-"'^•:- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PErCTION (S) N0. l/l|l| OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS :- • 1. 2. 3. ,4. / JAWAHAR SIN6H PORTE S/o Gulab Singh Porte, aged about 53 years, Occupation - 6ovt. Servant (Sub Inspector), At present posted at Potice Station (AJAK), Janjgir, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.6.) VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTIS6ARH Through - Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.6.) DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.6.) INSPECTOR 6ENERAL OF POLICE (Administration) Raipur, District: Raipur (C.6.). SUPERINTENDENT OF POLJCE, Janjgir, District; Janjgir-Champa (C.6.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTCON OF INDIA 11 fADTTrill ADC^-IC T-1 II: nCl-a-E-n^n- \c] HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. 444 of2010 PETmONER : Jawahar Singh Porte. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others. wpn' pETrnoN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE coNSTmjrioN OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Affliihotri. J. Present: Sihri Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. G.A. forthe State/respondents. ORALORDER 4. (Passed on 01" day of Febroary, 2010) With the consent ofleamed counsel appearing fbr the parties, &e matter is heard tinally. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 7.11.2009 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, wwkmg as Sub Inspector at Police Station, AJAK, District Jaajgir-Champa, was transferred to District Kanker. a» Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has sei-ved in difterent poliee stations at Naxalite affected areas. TIie petitioner was transterred from Rajnandgaon, a Naxalite affected area, to Janjgir-Champa on 01.09.2008. Thereafter, again wilfain a short span oftime, the petitioner has been transferred to district Kaaker, which is also a Naxalite afieeted area. Thus, the action of the respondent- authorities is arbitrary and malicious. Shri Sharan fiuther submits that no person has been transferred in place ofthe petitioner, and as such, there is no administrative eidgency. I have heard leamed counsel appearing tbr the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The allegation of the petitioner ttiat the transfer of the petitioner was arbitrary and malicious is not supported by any cogent reasmis. The petitioner has made a selfsame statement without any basis. Thus, the ground of arbitranness and malice deserves to be rejeeted. ^iM^s^ l'7n ^SSi, Anrit 8. The petitioner has not impugned the transfer order on any other admissible grounds i.e. lack of competence ofthe ofiicer passing the order, or violation of statutory mles ar regulations. Even otherwise, the impugned transfer order has been passed purely on administrative exigeney as aslongwith the petitioner, as many as 32 Sub Inspectors have been transferred, and that too, to Naxalite affected area only. There is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds as aforestated, wan-atrting interference. It is a trite law that transfer is aa incidence of service. The Coiirt should not interfere with Ifae transfer order unless there is a malice, infi'ingement ofstatutory mles and regulations or lack ofcompetence of the ofBcer, passing the order. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any ofthe aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted an^'where at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Govemment to post another person if any vacancy arises on aecount of transfer of an employee. Thus,the impugned transfer warrants no urterference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu cmd anotke^, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State ffBihar & another^, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S£oury and other/, Afohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, Scmth Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others^ and Airports Authority oflndia v. Rafeev Ratan Pandey & Others^. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, there is no merit in the case. The petition deserves to be and is aceordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. —':~^_ Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge ' 1^74 (4) SCC 3 2(1991)Supp2SCC659 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) S SCC 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337