HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SSNO. 1460 OF 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, son of Shri Heeratal Jaiswal, aged about 36 years, OccupationPatwari, Halka No.28, Seepat, residence of Kapil Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsll and DistrlctBllaspur (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhatt'sgarh, through Secretary, Revenue Department, Dau Katyan Sihgh Bhawan,Ralpur(CG). 2. Collector, Bitaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (CG). 3. Gendram Kulmitra, S/o Shri Ramswaroop Kulmitra, aged about 32 years, R/o Patwari Halka No.28, Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, Dist. Bilaspur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri T.K. Tiwari, counselforftepetitioner. Ms. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for theStete. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 19 day of March, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.the petition is heard finally. 2) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 18-2-2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by e Sscretary, Department of Revenue, whereby the posting place of the petitioner has beenamended. 3) Learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner submits that presently the petitioner is posted and working as Patwari at Patwari Hafka No.28 Sipat, Tahsil Masturi.DistrictBilaspur, as perthe transfei- order dated 30-6-2008 (Annexure - P/2). Against the said transfer, the rsspondent No.3 preferred a petition being W.R.<S) No.6358/08,which was dismissed by this Court byorder dated 12-12-2008 <Annexure—P/3). Thereafter, the Coltector by order dated 16/17-12-2008 (Annexure—P/4) handed over the charge of Partwari Halka No.28 to thepetitioner. Learned counsel further submits that in spite of the order passed bythis Court in the petition filed by the respondent No.3 and theorder passed by the Collector by which ttie charge of Patwari Halka No.28 was handed over to the petitioner, the w. & f: -><*" y. r respondent No.1 decided the representation ofthe respondent No.3 dated 25-10-2008 and passed theimpugn^d orderclgte^ 18-2-2009 byamending thepostingplaceofthepetitionen.e.PatwariHalkaNp.ZS. . 4) t have heard learnedcounsel appearingfor the parties, perused the ptsadings and the documente appended thereto. From the record, it appears that after considering all the facte and circumstancesofthecase in its letter and spirit the respondent No,1 has passed the order dated 18-2-2009 andthere is no illegality or infirmity in the jmpugned order. 5) tt is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well.as administrative exiflency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved mala ffde, non-eompetence ofauthority passing the transferorder and not being in conformitywith the rules and regulations. 6) The eourte or tribunals, whjch are appellate authorities, should refrain from considering fte niceties of ttie administrative needs and requirements ofttte sityatiorrK>rWemed. (See State ofU.P. and others vs. Gobardhan L.al'1) 7) InviewQftheforegoing.thewritpetitionisliabletobedismissedand isherebydismissed.. 8) Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Sdl- Gowri Satts^^^ iudS® tttotri 1 t'~tl(2004)11500-102