^^ '^y ^ GLE BENCFf IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(S)NO. l\°^ . OF 2011 TRANSFER MATTER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN QF IND1A FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORAR1 MANDAMUS. PROHIB1TION AND/OR A SUITABLE D!RECT!C[NOR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS / Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, S/o Shri Shiv Kishore Mishra, aged aboiit 46 years, Occupation - Assistant Internal Account Examiner and Taxation Officer, posted as Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS ! . _ • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secrelary, Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) /-2. The Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Department, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Collector, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) DETAILS OF THE PETITION r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4062 OF 2011 PETITIONER Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : hlon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri AJit Singh, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 27th day of July, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner, who is working on the post of Assistant Internal Account Examiner and Taxation Officer, has been transferred from Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Bilaspur to Janpad Panchayat Gourela, District Bilaspur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order suffers from malaise of frequent transfers, as within a period of 8 months by the impugned order dated 15-7-2011 the petitioner has been transferred from Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Bilaspur to Janpad Panchayat Gourela, District Bilaspur, which is against the transfer policy. Learned counsel further submits that even the wife of the petitioner is also working and posted as Assistant Grade II under the Janpad Panchayat Mungeli and as per the directions of the State Government both the husband and wife should be posted at one place. 4. Two transfer orders, which are passed within a period of eight months, cannot come within the purview of frequent transfers. Frequent transfer means, an employee is transferred frequently on several occasions. The grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order - "comes within the ambit of a frequent transfer, is not well established and not sustainable in law. There is no allegation on the part of the petitioner that there was any mala fide exercise of power or the officer has no competence to pass the impugned order and/or the impugned order is violative of statutory rules and regulations. So far as the submission of the petitioner that if both the husband and wjfe are jn Government service they should be posted at one place is concerned, this is not mandatory. The requirement is as far as possible both the spouses be posted at a particular place. Even otherwise, no document has been produced by the petitioner in support of the contention that the direction is mandatory and the same has been violated by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned transfer order. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another , State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others , Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authohty of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others ). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of thecase on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Gowri Sd/- Sattsh K. Agnihotri Judge 1 1974(4)8cc3 2 (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995)33cc 270 4 (2007)83cc 150 5 (2007)88cc 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337