IN THE HIGHCOURTOFCHiiATHS<MRHATBiLASPUR WRTT PE1THON ^S) N0. ^W^ QP 2011 PEITHON1SR ;^^< ,.^'^J.:.^ y:i§a^ ,.:.-" ,>?A.<^\^.-- ^- ^^ "^y- RESPONDENTS ^ Cliiaam Lal Maitri S/o Prahlad Sin^a Maitri, a^ed about 46 years^ workhig as Upper DMsion Techer, Govt. Niddle Shcool BSiaiyainuda, BIock Gharghoda, District Ra^arh Cfafaattisgarh VE R SU S 1." State ofChhattisgarh, tfarough The Secretaiy, Tribal Welfare Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur, Distrlct- Baqmr, (C.G.). 2. ^ Assistant Commissioiaer, Tiibal Welfare Departinent Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh i C.G.) 3. Block Education OfiRcer, Bloels- Gfctarghcxla, Distt - IRai^rh < C.O.) WRTT PETNION U/A 226 OF 'ffiE CONSmTmiON OP INmA p [\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR PETmONER WRTT PETmON (S) No. 6904 of2011 Chunni Lal Maitri. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETmON U/A 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Sfari Satish K. Asmhotri, J. Present: Shri Awadh Tripatfai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forlfae State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 23ro day ofNovember, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Raigarh, whereunder the representation ofthe petitioner against tihie order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/2) transferring the petitioner, woriking as Upper Division Teacher, Middle School, Baihamuda; Block Gharghoda; to Lailunga, on fhe option ofthe Block Education Qjfficer, was rejected. 2. Shri Tripatfii, leamed counsel appearmg for tfie petitioner submits fhat earlier, fhe petitioner was promoted to the post ofHead Master and posted at Middle School, Kushalda, Block Ghar^iora, District Raigarh. Since the petitioner was not interested in joining the promoted post he made a representation on 21.02.201 1 stating that he is ready to forgo the promotion and is willing to contmue cn the post of Upper Division Teacher. Considering his representation, fhe respondent authorities demoted the petitioner to tiie post of Upper Division Teacher vide order dated 10.02.2011 (Amiexure P/4). He was posted at Middle School, Baihamuda. Shri Tripafhi ^^., next submits that within a period of five montiis of joimng at Baihamuda, the petitioner was traiisferred to Block Education Qffice, Lailunga vide order dates 15.07.2011 (Amiexure P/2). The said order was challenged before fhis Court in W.P(S) No. 4212/2011, which was subsequently withdrawn on 01.08.2011 (Amiexure P/6) with liberty to make a representation. Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation aiid the respondent aufhorities, deciding the representation dated 08.08-2011 (Annexure P/6) rejected the same vide the impugned order dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure P/l) which is unjust and bad in law. Qn fhe other hand, Shri Bhadun, leamed counsel appearing for Ifae State/respondetrts subnuts that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as the petitioner has been traaisferred purely on administrative grounds. The petitioner has fijrtfaer not filed any document to establish that he had relinquished his promotion only on condition fhat he would not be transferred to any otfaer place. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Qn pemsal ofthe impugned order dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure P/l) it is very much clear that pursuaiit to Ifae order dated 15.07-2011 (Annexure P/2), fhe petitioner was already relieved on 27.07.2011 to join the new place ofposting. Even, the petitioner has not filed acopy ofthe representation to establish asto whefher the petitioner had waived ofFhis promotion on a condition that he would not be transferred to any other place. ^-.' "X&. .^'.-•'-^cl "^. f€I%\ I'I... K JJ ^,ji'!!t3sy ^•^s^^' 6. 8. 9. The petitioner has not challenged fhe impugned transfer order oa any ofher pemiissible legal ground i.e. maktfide, violation ofany statutory mles or regulations or lack ofcompetence ofthe officer, passing tiie impugned order. It is well-settled that Iransfer is an incidence ofservice and it is for fhe employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping m view public interest as well as aAmnisfrative exigency and here should not be any mterference with the admimstrative function oftfae State Govemment. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases ofproved malafide^ non-competeiice of aufhority passmg the fransfer ord^r and not being in confbnnity with flie rules aiid regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and admuustrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamilNadu andanother1, Union oflndia and another v. Janareffian Debanafh & anofhe?, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and others^ aMMohd. MasoodAhmadv. StateofU.P. &0thers4). In view offhe above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ashok l(1974)48cc3 -2 (2004)43cc 245 3 (1995)33cc 270 4(200108SCC150