HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ETITIONER S.K. Sahu, s/o N.L. Sahu, aged about 52 years, occupation Government service, r/o —c/o office of the Assistant Commissioner Excise, Collectorate Compound Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary Department of Commercial Tax (Excise), Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Mr Pramod Verma learned Senior Counsei with Mr SumitVerma counselforthe petitioner Mr Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy Advocate General for the State WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (1 1 .082009) Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure-P~1) passed by respondent by which the petitioner who is working as Excise Sub Inspector has been/ transferred from the office of Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Janjgir — Champa to the office of District Excise Officer, Koriya, on administrative ground. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that in his present place of posting the petitioner has joined on 15.4.2008 after being transferred from Sarguja on his own request, as he/ had some personal difficulty, which according to him, still exists}; He further submits that once he was transferred on his own‘l request and on his own expenses, the State Government, ought to have permitted him to complete the normal tenure of three years. According to the petitioner there are number of‘l officers of his cadre working at Janjgir Chama who have l l P 6§ completed more than 10 years but hfave not been shifted. Lastly, he submits that the order impugned has been passed during the Counsei for the State submits that transfer order has been issued in the administrative exigency and admittedly no male iides have been alleged by the petitioner and therefore the order impugned cannot be interfered with. He further submits that it is prerogative of the State to post a particular employee as per the requirement of the administrative exigency and therefore the ban period and the same is not permissible. petitioner cannot claim his posting in a particular place. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petition has no merits and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to tile representatio against the impugned transfer order, if so advised. Sdf- / Pritinker Diwaer Judge DI- n k