c^ t^zA ^ L GopalYadav, S/o Shri Gajacfhar Yadav, aged about 54 years, Post Senior Overman in S.E.C.L., Churcha Colliery, Korea, District Korea (C.G.) ?^\^ ^^p^' 1.' General Manager (qiKio), S.E.C.L, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Chief General Manager (^ Deputy Regional Manager S.E.C.L, Ghurcha (R.O.),, Baikunthpur Area, District Korea (C.G.) 3."~ ManagerS.E.C.L, Churcha (R.O.), District Korea (C.G.) Sub Area Manager, S.E.C.L, Churcha (R.O.) Baikunth'pur, District Korea (C.G.) HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6592 OF 2010 PETITIONER Gopal Yadav c Versus RESPONDENTS General Manager (ww) and others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms Anju Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms Sareena Khan, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 26th day ofJuly, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 25/26-10-2010 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Churcha to Bishrampurarea. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier by an order dated 9-10-2010, the petitioner, who was working on the p'ost of Senior Overman in SECL, Churcha, was transferred from Churcha to Katkona area. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. (S) No.6152/2010. Learned counsel further submits that this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition by order dated 28-10-2010 (Annexure - P/3), observed that if so advised, the petitioner may flle a representation before the concerned authority against the order of his transfer on the ground that he has old parents aged about '90 years and he has a daughter, who is disabled to the extentof60%. 4.' Ms Ahuja next submits that on the basis of the order dated 28-10-2010 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.6152/2010, the petitioner submitted a representation on 31-10-2010 iU & (Annexu're - P/4), but prior to filing of the representation, on 28-10-2010 (Annexure - P/6), the said order of transfer of the petitioner was cancelled. Moreover, prior to cancellation of the earlier transfer order on 28-10-2010, the petitioner was again transferred by the impugned order dated 25/26-10-2010 from Churcha to Bishrampur area. Learned counsel also submits that the action on the part of the respondents amounts to be mala fide exercise of power. Even the respondents have not taken the note of the order dated 28-10-2010 passed by this Court. The respondents are harassing the petitioner by sending him on transfer by passing the impugned order after canceling the earlier order dated 28-10-2010. On the other hand, Shri Agrawal, learned senior appearing with Ms. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in fact the respondents have no knowledge about the order dated 28-10-2010 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.6152/2010, as the same has been passed on ex parte basis, therefore, there is no question of disobedience of the order passed by this Court. The transfer order has been passed on the basis of administrative exjgency. The same is just & proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Mere statement of mala fide does not hold that there was a mala fide exercise of power. The petitioner has to establish by cogent reasons on production of documents, pertaining to related activities to show that mala fide was exercised in passing the impugned transfer order. The petitioner has failed to prove the mala fide and lack of competenGe of the officer passing the impugned transfer order. There is also no allegation of violation of statutory provisions of law. Thus, the transfer order is just and proper. ^3 -'^' 8. 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 another perspn 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.Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Ofhers v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others^. 9. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on handand for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. 10. For the reasons asaforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liabte to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge IIIi fi ' 1974(4)3cc3 2 (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 "(2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 8 (2009) 8 SCC 337