^ ^ [^ L^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(st N0. T> QF2Q09 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ..^' ..- J-''\1 .•••'' .^ VfA .-^' ^;^.^ S-''/!, '-•••' ^^>' ^€> '^ , ^>-"^' ..^' ><••'' ^r' ..-•'' .^ A" /w Sharma, Aged about 47 years, S/o Late Dr.R.N. Shanna, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Korba, R/o OA-5, CSEB (East), Korba, Dist. Korba (CG) VBRSUS 1. <r" 2. ^" 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Department of Home (Police), DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Du'ector General of Police, Headquarters, Ralpur, Distt. RaipLir (CG) Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Superintendent of Police, Distt. Korba (CQ) Superintendent of Police, District Narayanpi.iT (CG) PBTmON UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OFINDIA PARTK3IIARS-OEU" Rajat Sharma State of Chhattisgarh & otliers WRIT PETITION UNDER_ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Ms Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwaiit Siugh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for fhe 'respondents. (Passed on this 22nd day of October, 2009) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging flie order dated 13.6.2009 (Aniiexure P,/l), passed by fhe respondeiit No.l, whereby fhe petitioner has been transferred froin. the post of Deputy Superintendeiit of Police at Korba the post of Deputy Superiatendeiit ofPoUce (Operation) at Narayaapur. 2. Ms Fouzia Mirza, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits fhat the petitioner is aa officer holding ttie post of Deputy Superuitendent of Police at Korba caTryiiig junior pay scale i.e. Rs. 8,000 - 13,500. By the impugned order dated 13.6.2009 (Annexure P/ 1) fh.e petitioner has been trausferred to fhe post of Deputy Superiatendent of Police (Operation) at Nara5raiipur which is ineant for aa ofEcer iu senior grade, carmng pay scale of Rs. 10,000 - 15,200. Thus, the order is vitiated on the ground that fhe officer at lower pay scale caanot be posted at a post which is m.eaat for the officer of senior giade. Leained counsel fui-ther B- subinits fhat the post of Deputy Superintendeiit of Police (Operation) is a proiuotional post iu seruor pay scale. 3. Shri Yashwant Siagh Thakur, leamed Deput}7 Advocate General subiaits fhat the State Goveminent has sanctioned 12 posts of Deputy Superiittendent of Police (Operation) at Jagdalpur, Daatewada, Kanker, Bijapur, Narayaiipur, Surguja, Surajpur, Balrampur, Korea, Kabirdham, RaJDandgaon, Jashpur and Raipur and as such fhere is a post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Operation), available at Narayanpur. Learaed counsel furfher subniits fhat inay be th.e post of Deputy Superintendent of PoUce (Operatioa) at Narayanpur is ineant for the ofiicer in senior pay scale, however, it caiuiot be held as bad if a Deputy Superintendent of Police ofjunior grade is posted agaiust the said post. The posting has been done for waiit of availabiUty of tiie of&cers in senior grade. 4. Having heard leanied couasel appeariag for fhe parties and haviug perused fhe docunients appended thereto, it is not a case wherein there is aa allegatiou of laalafide or breach of prevalent niles aiid regulations or the officer passiag fhe order is not competeat to pass the order. It is for the einployer to post the petitioner lookin^ to public interest and adrmnistrati.ve exigency. Eveu otherivise, fhe petitioner is not prejudiced by his posting as Depuly Superuitendent of PoHce (Operation), at Narayanpur, even if fhe post is ineaat for the of&cer ia senior grade. 5._ It is well-setUed that transfer is an. iacidence of service aiid it is for the eiuployer to decide asto where a particular officer/ eniployee be posted, keeping tn. view pubUc interest as weU as administrative ^ya-WSj^ /f=y^ / 'i--»._ " *& $§»,;, I •'-3j?®i?'. g '!'-,. exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to iaterfere with ffae trausfer inatter, except iu fhe cases of proved inalafide, non-competence of aufhority passiug the traasfer order and not beiag iu conformily with tbe rules aad regulations. The petitioner/eiaployee caiuiot lie permitted to reinaia at one place forever. Under fhe provisions of service rules, eruployer has aU fhe powers to post au ofiicer/einployee at a pafticular place ui view of public iuterest and adTninistrative exigency. (See B.P.Royappa v. State of Tam.il Nadu and another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. Sfate of Bihar & another2, Urdon oflndia and aiiofher v. JanarcSian Debanalh & another3, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others4 said Mohd. MasoodAhmcidv. Staie ofU.P.Ss Others5). 6. There is no challenge to the impugned ta-aasfer order on any ottier pemiissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warraating iuterference with fhe unpugned tra&sfer order. 7. For the reasons as afore-stated, fhe petition is disiuissed. No oider asto costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^-—.'-">:- 11974 (4) SCC 3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 ' (2004) 4 SCC 245 4 (1995) 3 SCC 270 •' (2007) 8 SCC 150