(<ye> Sj'ngI&Bench y <^~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTIS_GARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. <5-^^L /_20Qo Petitioner Versus Respondents ^.^A"^^^ f..^----:^E.^Wk^' ^^shtS30::--- .••—•"^"**" k.~—"" itate*- Jagdish Singh •- S/o Shri Lt Balram, Ageu about 42 yearg R/o Rikhi (Salka), Block & P.S. - Udaipur, Dist: Sarguja-(C.G.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh / Through-The Secretary General Admn. Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Dist : Raipur-(C.G.) 2. The CoUector Sarguja,' Dist: Sarguja-(C.G.) 3. The Commissioner, Adhiyasi Vikas Ayukt Ainbikapur Dist: Sat'guja-(C.G.) 4. The Block Education Officer, Udaipur, Dist: Sarguja-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition fS) No. 5927 of2006 Petitioner: Jagdish Singh Vcrsus Respondents: State ofChhattisgarIi & ofhers Slngle Bench: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satteh K. Agnlliotri, Shri A. N. Paadey, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the Respondents. ORDER ( 2nd November, 2006) The foUowiiig order ofthe Coiu-t is passed by Satish K. Agaihotrl, J. 1. The petitioner, while posted as Teacher in middle school Lalati, Block Udaipiir was transferred to primary school Totko, Block Origi i.e. within district- Sui^uja, by order dated 7.7.2006. Cousequent upon the traasfer orier relieving order dated 28,7.2006 (Annexure P/2) was served upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.No. 4188/2006 chatlenging the validity of fhe reUeving order dated 28.7.2006. 2. This Court after hearing bofh the parties granted libei-ty to the petitioner to inake a representation, if any, to fhe respondent No. l with a direction that the same would be decided within a period of 30 days. The representation was considered by the State Authorities aad decided by order dated 21.9.2006 (Annexure p/1). ^^ 3. Upon perusal ofthe inipugned onler datcd 21.9.2006 it appears fhat uiitiaUy the transfer order dated 7.7.2006 was passed in public interest and due to fhe administeative exigency. The State autliority has considered aU the aspects of the inatter before rejecting the represeutation of fhe petitioner. Needless to say fhat the petitioner has been taansfen-ed fiioDi one block to fhe other block within fhe same district of naxalite infested district, therefore fhe provision of para 2 (4) of the transfer poUcy 2006- 2007 is not appUcable. 4. Be that as it may, it is weU settted principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the einployer to decide as to where a pardcular ofBcer/einployee be posted keeping ia view pubUc mterest as weU as admiaistrative exigency. This Court has lunited jurisdiction to uiterfere ia the transfer matter and this Court can interfere onfy iu the case of proved inalafide, non- coinpetence of authority passing the transfer orier and transfer order not being in confoniuly with fhe rules and regulations. None ofthe above gTounds are available to the petitioner. 5. In view of the foregoing, fhe petition is disnussed. No order as to costs. ;— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur