^ff^ fc° J.^--;"^..'--"" ..... ^wW:-" ,..1-^ -..•^"l^ i'-''' ..••'? ^<t*'- .^' ® s;ssi{ra" ^y s" ^£ Ti E»».;i! WRIT PETITION (s) Vo"{ 1 .S 2- /2011 Aged about 3) years, ru A o', B^ •li^ 1 : and Ruria. aya, Raipur Zila Panchayat-Ambikapur (Surguja), Distt. Surguja, C.G. »^' Surguja, C H^A <~1 ^-1_ t/.Ur. Aged about - Not kaown to the petitiofler, Presently working as Block Education Officer, C'^.l r, Uistt. c. imt'. Lusi Kumhria, Aged about - Not known to the petitioner, le peuuoner, "9 Presently posted at Prunary School-Chamanpur, ja,C, (^ 10 IK l^ l^ in 10 ^^ ig l^°k tuuutf \^ 1> in ><n^ \w> 160 13 lt'1 Iri 10 10 o Iw HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER WRTT PETmON (S) No. 7152 of2011 Smt. Devmati Paikra. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WKFT PEimON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTIONOF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aemhotri. J. Present: Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate or the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1.3and4. ORDER (Passed on 01 day ofDecember, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P/l) vrfiereby, the petitioner, working as Superitrtendent, Govemment Girls Asbram, Ranhat, Block Balrampur, has been directed tojoin at Middle Sehool, Lurgikhurd, on administrative grounds. 2. Shri Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order is an outeome of mala flde and arbitrary exercise of power as in order to accommodate fhe respondent No. 6, the impugned order has been passed. As per the set up of fhe Tribal Welfare Department for posting an employee in Hostel, only the petitioner is eligible as she is Shiksha Karmi Grade II, and the respondent No. 6, in no way is eligible to be posted at any Hostel as she is Shiksha Kanni Grade III. He fiirther submits that the action of the respondent authorities is in violation of Artiele 14, 15 and 19 ofthe Constitution of India. Furfher, the respondent authorities have not considered the 6. representation submitted by the petitioner. It is next submitted that fhe petitioner has not been issued the transfer order dated 19.09.2011. The petitioner has not submitted any document in support of his allegation of mala flde, except the self-same statement, which is not sufBcient to hold that there was a malaflde exercise ofpower. To establish mala ftde, there should be strong cogent reasons. Thus, the allegation ofmalaflde is unfounded. So far as alleeation of accommodating the respondent No. 6 is concemed, there is no merit in the case as in place ofan employee who has been transfen-ed, some other employee has to be posted on account of vacancy created by the transfer. Thus, even if, according to leamed counsel for the petitioner, the impugied transfer order is an aceommodation, that camiot be a a-ound for setting aside the transfer order. If the respondent No. 6 is not eligible to be posted in a Hostel, it is for tiie State Govemment to make proper arraneemeirt for posting ofeligible person. The petitioner has not challenged the impugied transfer orda- on any other pennissible leeal g-ound i.e. violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of fhe officer, passing the impugped order. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence ofservice and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ofRcer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as admmistrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the eases of proved mala ftde, non- competenee of authority passing fhe transfer order and not beine in 7. eonformity with tfae rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and admimstrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu and another^, Unian oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another1, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kffurav and other/ asdMohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofUJ>. & Others). In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is aceordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner has not been served with the order dated 19.09.2011 as referred to in the impuaied order, the same may be provided to the petitioner, forthwith. —-——- '£i SatishK.Agnihc"1 Judge Anut