HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BtLASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0. 7163 OF 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Asit Kumar Dey, S/o Shri N.P. Dey, aged about 41 years, Occupation Rank Head Constable/RadIo Operator, D/4 Signal, CRPF. Resident of Qtr. No. LIG 510, Sector VI, Saddud. Distt. Raipur (CG). Versus 1. DIG (Communjcatfon), Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. Commandant. 4/SignaJ. B.N. Head Quarter CRPF, Neemuch, Distt. Mandsour 3. DIG Police. Central Reserve Police Force. Shankar Nagar, Near VIP Club, Raipur 4. OfRcer Commandino D/4 Signal. G.S.I. Post OfRce Mandhar, Near Vidhan Sabha, Raipur (CG). 5. Shri P.V.S. Sharma, aged about years, Occupation Rank Head Constable/Radio Operator. 0/4 Signal G.5.1. P.0. Madhar. Near Vidhan Sabha, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under ArtJcte226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri R.R. Sinha, counsel for the petitioner. ORALORDER (Passed on this 13m day of February, 2009) By this petjtion, the petitioner impugns the order 6-12-2008 (Annexure-P/1) by which he has been transferred from D/4 Signal to 181 Battalion. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined at the present place of posting on 2-11-2006 and without completing the period of three years the impugned transfer order has been passed. Even the same has been passed during mid academic session. which is against the provisions prescribed under the Standing Order No.2/2008 issued by the Djrector General, CRPF, New Delhi (Annexure-P/4). Learned counsel further submits that the wjfe of the petitioner has filed a complaint against one CRPF personnel namely, R.K. Mahapatra before the CRPF authorities stating that eariier he was tryjng to outrage her modesty and the said person has also been fransferred to the ^'^ -2- transfer place of the present petitioner. Learned counsel next submits that similariy situated employees who have already been completed more than three years of services at a particular place have not been transferred whereas before completion of three years of service at a particular place the petitioner has been transferred, whteh is against the prescribed provisions. 3) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pteadings and the documente appended thereto. 4) It is well settled principte of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ofRcer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the cases of proved mala ffcte, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. None of the above grounds are available to the petitioner. 5) In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 6) Consequently, t.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge