Bench \c IN 1IIE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATHSGARH C3? ^^-^- WRIT PETnTlON,N0. ~ OP 2006 BETWEEN /Banshi Lal Sahu S/o Shri D.R.Sahu,aged about 57 years, occupation semce, working as Sub InspecfaM- in fhe Chbatti^arh Police , posted at City Kotwali Mahasann.ind, resident of Mahasamund, Tahsil and Distnct Mahasaniund {CG^. .t*^.l-' JS' .p^'...<'^ <v\' ..-•."^^?'" .. ^"x^- ^>~'..--'' -lA-"''' w--"'^-l'. ..-•" ..••"'•,,'•'^--" ^^'^"' ^^•- ,...si-" PETITIONER AND >'t.../2 1. The Stateof Chhattisgarh, Throi%h the Secretary Department of Home Affaira, Mantralay, D.K.S. Buflding, Raipur (C.G.) ^T^^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Under Secretary, ^?."' ^ ^Bfcpartment of Home, Mantralay, D.K.S. Buflding, Raipur (CG). <^ ^S. The Director General of Police , PHQ Raipur, Tahsil and district Raipur (CG). k Tlie Superintend of PoBce, Mahasannund, TahsQ and District ^-\ y :,a /^^. Raipur (CG). ^^~~N^ ':f/^ .^^\ ^is.s^p^i'y RESPONDENTS ^g^ '<••»~?,,ir\^ .< TAt-.S'^ ^/WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICUE 226AST OP CONSTITUTION OF INDIA KE6H COURT OF CHHATTrseARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6852 of 2006 Versus Respondents; Banshi LaS Sahu The State of ("hhati-isgarh & A..A.^ Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Sunil Sdiu, Advocate for the petitioner. ?hri Arvind Dubey, Pane! iawyer for the respondents/Statc ORDER tth (Passed on 9Tn day of January, 2007) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was empioyed as Sub-Inspector. By the order dated 9/10.3.2006 y/3), the petitioner was transferred from District Mahasamund to Surguja Rcuige. 2. Earlier, the petitioner had fiied a writ petition, being W.P. No. 1354 of 2006, impugning the suid transfer order. This Court after hearing teamed counsel for the petitioner os wei! as Eeamed counsel for the State came to the conciusion that the ends of justice served if a direction is given to +he petitioner +o make o. detaiied representotion. It. was further directed that the competent authority of the respondents/State sho!) decide the representation — f^ Y-.4 ^ •\^/' on its own roerit in accordonce with faw, as eorly as possible, pr<ferab!y, within a period of two months from tiie date of receipt of Ihe representation. 3. The petitioner has filed a representation on 22.4.2006 0'/7). The Home Department, Sovernment of Chhattisgarh, through the Under Secretary it appears, have considered ail the aspects of the matl-er and by order dated 27.5.2006 O'/S), dismissed the representation filed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has filed the second writ petition, the instant one, on 16.11.2006 impugning -riie tnnsfer order as well as the order dated 27.6.2006 £.1 passed in tiie reprasentation. 5o far as the transfer order is concerned that has aSr-eady been considered by tiiis Court and •the petition was di^oad of by tiie order dated 21.3.2006 (P/6). This Court connot entertain the se-cond petition for the same cause of action and the some retief as a matter of public policy. VVith regard to the order doted 27.6.2006 (P/8) passed by tiie respondent/State, fearned counse! for the petitioner points out to the transfer poiicy diated 1.4.2006 (P/4), wherein it is cleariy provided that the Sub-In^iector has to serve naxalite infested areos for minimuin 10 years during his %rvice period ond in one term he hos to serve for 5 years and thereafter he con be transferred to o1+ier piaces. Admittedly, the petitioner has served at the present piace i.e. District Mahasoimund for two and half years. It is submitted by Searned counse! for the petitioner that the petitioner has served more tiian two and hdlf years in the Kmiker district, Bastar and vide order dated 15.9.2003 he has been transferred from district Kanker to district Mohasamund. District fanker is also naxatite infested area. 6. There is no reason to interfere wi-tfi the traisfer order, parl'icuiariy in the facts of the case when several areas of -rtiis State are infested with naxa!ite problems. Tne police personnel cannot insist upon Staying in any other areas throughout his career. 7. Be -Hiat as it nsay, it is wel! sett-led principle of law that transfer is an incident of ssrvice ana' it is for fne emp'oyer to decide as to where a particuhr officer/erapfoyee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Courf- has Simited jurisdiction to interfere in the tr-ansfer matter ond this Court asn mierfe.re. only in the case of proved mafafide, non-competence of authority po^sing tfie traisfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rutes and regutations. None of the above grounds are avaii'able to ihe petitioner. 8. TTie wn't petition is accordingSy dismisssd. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Bablu A.