IN THE HIGH_COURT OF CHHATnSGARIi_AT_BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. 5%S6 OF 2011. PETITIONER \^/^ "^y/ r^A^/ ^'./^^" ../ ^^••" ,/yy ^>'\^~ ^ i.^'' £^ RESPONDENTS Sohan Sai Ekka, S/o. late Shri Ram Badan Ekka, aged about 51 years, Block Resource Coordinator, Shankargarh, District Sarguja, (C.G.) . VERSUS :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. The Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Project Coordinator Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mis°ion, Ambikapur District Sargiija (C.G. &••£;'^ 4. Philip Ekka, S/o. not known, age'd about 52, Block Resource Coordinator, Ramchandpur, District Sarguja, (C. G.) 5. Shri Mikhail Xalxo, S/o. not known, aged about 49, Block Resource Coordinator, Premanagar, District Sarguja, (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5856 OF 2011 PETITIOJSIER Sohan Sai Ekka Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 29tn day of September, 2011) 1. Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 19-8-2011 (Annexure - P/1) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Block Resource Centre, Shankargar, District Sarguja to Block Resource Centre, Premnagar, District Sarguja. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without there being any administrative exigency. The same has been passed only to accommodate the respondents No.4 & 5. The petitioner Joined at the present place of posting on 1-12-2010 and before completion of one year the impugned order has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Thus, this petition. 4. There is no allegation on the part of the petitioner that there was any mala fide exercise of power or the officer has no competence to pass the impugned order and/or the impugned order js violative ofstatutory rules and regulations. 5. So far as contention of the petitioner that the transfer order has been passed to accommodate the respondents No.4 & 5 is concerned, there is no merit in the case, as in place of employee, '•< ^^'/ ''w ^.s" who has been transferred, other employee is to be posted. Thus, even if, it is according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is accommodation, that cannot be a ground of mala fide for setting aside the transfer order, unless some cogent and strong reasons are produced to establish mala fide. 6. Be that as it may, 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 gnother. 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 & another^, State of M.P. and another v. S.S. Kourr and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others4 Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others ). 7. 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 in the case. 8. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Ashok Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 1974(4)3cc3 2 (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007)88cc 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337