Qg W6 L IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M 0% WRIT PETITION (s‘ NO. OF 2011 / PETITIONER J. K. Nalndev, S/o Shri S. R. Namdev, aged about 58 years, presently working as Sub— Engincer — cum — Sub Divisional Officer (In-charge) Water Resource Sub Division, No. 9, Gangrel, Dhamtari, DistDhamtan' (Chhattisgalh) VERSUS -. ‘ a” E WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND OTHER USUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: The petitioner above~named most respectfully submits as under: 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS / 1 State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Water Resources Department Mantralaya, D K S Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) . 2./ Engineer‘in—Chief, Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 3./ Superintending Engineer, Mahanadi Water Reservoir Project, Dam Division, Rudri Dist.Dhamtari(Chhattisgarh) 4.’ Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, Rudri Dist.Dhamtari(Chhattisgarh) / 5. R. K. Singhai, AssttEng'neer O/O the Suptg. Engineer, Mahanadi Water Reservoir Project, Dam Division, Rudri Dist.Dhamtari(Chhattisgarh) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.408 OF 2011 PETlTlONER J.K. Namdev Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. it”! Shri Sushi! Dubey, Government Advocate for the State. Shri BP. Singh and Shri Sameer Kujur, Advocates for the respondent No.5 eta» 5 ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 13‘ day of Aprii, 201 1) 1. Heard Iearned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to chailenge the legaiity and vaiidity of the order dated 08/1 212010 (Annexure PM) by which the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Sub Divisional Officer (In-charge) Water Resources Sub Division No.9 Gangrel, District-Dhamtari to the post of Sub Engineer, in the office of Mahanadi Jalashay Pariyojana Bandh, Sub Division No.1 Gangrel. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier by order dated 06/08/2010 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner was posted as Sub Divisional Ofncer (in-charge), Water Resources, Sub :i'k, w. Division No.9, Gangrel, District-Dhamtari. Pursuant to the said order. the petitioner ioined his dutv on 31/O8l201 0. Thereafter, the petitioner performed so many works with honestly and sincerity. However, within a short span of time, by order dated 08/12/2010 (Annexure PM), the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Sub Divisionai Officer (in-charge) Water Resources Sub Division No.9 Gangrel, District-Dhamtari to the post of Sub Engineer, in the office of Mahanadi Jalashay Pariyojana Bandh, Sub Division No.1 [0% Gangrel and posted the respondent No.5 in piace of the petitioner in an illegal and arbittary manner. The impugned order has been passed oniy to accommodate the respondent No.5. The impugned order has been passed against the guidelines issued by the State Government and transferred the petitioner without obtaining prior approval from the Chief Minister. It was next contended that the respondent No.5 had joined the new piace of posting immediateiy on 09/12/2008 ex-parte. where the petitioner was posted without being relieved from the earlier place of posting. Thereafter, despite the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent No.5 created several pmblems in discharging the function of the petitioner. Thus, the entire exercise of power in accommodating the petttioner. was maiicious and on this ground, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is going to retire from service within a period of one and half year i.e. in the month of July 2012. Thus, this petition. The impugned transfer order was passed by the State Government in exercise of its power under Article 166 (1) of the Constitution of lndia. Thus, the joining of the respondent No.5 ex-perte without taking proper relieving from the old place of posting, does not support the contention of the petitioner that it was male tide exercise of power. The approval in coordination with the Chief Minister was taken before the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the impugned order has been passed after obtaining prior approval of the Chief Minister. In this regard, he has produced a copv of the proceedinds. which has been taken on record. 7. Be that as it may, it is wen-sewed that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the empioyer to decide asto whethre a particuiar omcer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved male tide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the ruies and regulations. 8. The petitioner has failed to establish and prove his contentions, except making selfsame statement. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of 9 b service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another’, Union of Indie and another v. Janaidhan Debanath 8: anothetz, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and othersa and Mend. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others"). 9. The Supreme Court, in Airports Authority of India v. Rejeev Ratan Pandey 8: Others5, held that “ln a matter of transfer of a government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer”. 10. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference. 11. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. No order w Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge asto costs. 1 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (2004) 4 soc 245 i (.995) 3 scc 27o @007) 8 scc 150 5 (2009) 8 scc 337