Smgw @gnc’h ® IN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT/ BILASPUR WRIT PETlTl0N( No qwl OF 2011 -\ TRANSFER MATTER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND/OR A SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER ' PETITIONER Manbodh Goyal, (Wrongly mention in order impugned as Manbodh i Baghel at Sr. No» 22) S/o Late‘ Shri Budhrar‘n Goyai, aged about 49 years, Occupation — Upper Division Teacher Middie School, Cuicha, Block — Jagdaipur, District — wmgi W “I ' k ’ I’; / Bastar (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. / ,State ofChhattisgarh,Through:Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K. S. Bhawan Mantraiay, Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribai 2. / -Welfare Development Department, Bastar District — Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 3 The Collector, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (Bastar) (Chhattisgarh) E — IGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH : BILASPU WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 4302 OF 2011 PETITIONER Manbodh Goyal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) I Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P,K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 04‘" day of August, 201 1) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner working as Upper Division Teacher at Middle School, Kalcha, Block Bakawan, has been transferred to Middle School Harrakoder, Block Lohandiguda, on administrative grounds. Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per circular dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner is a Class—ll employee and as pér the transfer policy of the State for year 2011-12, he cannot be transferred. The petitioner is being subjected to frequent transfers,’as the petitioner was transferred earlier on 18.10.2009 (Annexure P—3), 15.07.2010 (Annexure P-4) and recently by the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1). Shri Dubey, further submits that at the time of posting at Middle School, Chulcha, the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor for conducting the work of census and he was transferred to the office of Block Education Officer, Lohandiguda, vide order dated 15.07.2010. The said order was challenged before this Court by way of writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4238/2010 and the said petition was allowed, quashing the transfer order dated 15.07.2010 vide order dated 05.10.2010 (Annexure P—5). Now, again within a short span of one year the petitioner has again been transferred. Thus, this petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. H R 42g 5. On perusal of the circular dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure_ P-6), it appears that the pay—scale i.e. Rs. 6500-10500 mentioned in the circular relates to the fifth pay commission and the pay-siip (Annexure P-7) annexed to the petition does not indicate anything with regard to the fact asto which pay-scale, the petitioner was drawing at present. He has further also not fiied any document in support of his contention that he is a Class—II officer. The petitioner has further not produced any document to show that he is still engaged in the census work. The contention with regard to frequent transfers is also frivolous, as there is a reasonable gap between the period of his various transfers. 6. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of. Tamil Nadu and another’, Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar & anothelz, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others" Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit Ashok 1 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (1 991) Supp 2 SCC €59 3 (1 995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC $37 in the case. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl- 4 i Satish K. Agnihotri g ‘X ' Judge