t ^ i-9^ , A. ^.^/ "-^y ^ H1GH C10URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .-/ PETITIQNER WritPetttioni(S)No.351?of2(Xt8 Dr. B.P. Soni, S/o Budhsen Soni, aged about 44 years, R/'o HIG-1, 49, A, Narmada Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur(CG). VERSUS RESPQNDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh throiigh Secretary, Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) Departaaent, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 2. Director, Vetermary Service, Chfaattisgarh, Raipur 3. Joint Director, Veterinaiy Service, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur(CG). 4. Manager, Govemment Pouitry Farm, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur(CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER AR1ICLE 226 OF THE CONSTirunON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Manoj Pamnjpe; Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advoeate General for the State. OMALORDER (Passed oa 7th day ofJiriy, 2008) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2, The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 30.06,2008 (Annexure P/15), whereby, the petitioner alongwith 57 more ofticers have been transterred, from Poultry Fai^n, Bilaspur to Vetennary Hospital, Kusmi, District Surguja (CG); on administmtive ground. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submite that the petitioner was appointed as a member of the High Level Enquiry Committee by order dated 27.12.2005 (Annexure P/l). The said committee has made several recommendations agamst several persons who were indulgmg in encroachment pf the govemment lands. On the basis of the report, Tahsildar, Bilaspur has also taken some steps, and had written letter to the Sub Division Officer (for short 'SDO'), Bilaspur dated 28.03.2006 (Annexure P/2). In the complaint dated 30.04.2008, the petitioner has made several allegations against the senior officers of the department, namely Joint Director as well as the present Manager of Poultry Farm. / ( '"-^- •^ .// ./ kUllllUMIk, Thus, the transter order dated 30.06.2008 (Annexure P/15) is malafide exercise ofpower to remove him from his seat. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused tfae pleadings and documents appended Ifaereto. Only the petitioner was not the member ofthe committee, there were senior officers like Collector, Joint Director, Veterinary Services, SDO (Revenue) and SDO (Police) in the xSaid committee, who had made recommendations for initiating enquiry. The petitioner submite that he was overall in-eharge of the said committee. It is for the govemment to make enquiry and talce appropnate steps. 5. By the impugned order, not only the petitioner, but 57 more officers have also been transferred alongwith the petitioner. It appears that, the said transter order has been passed in public interest due to administrative exigency. The allegation, made by the petitioner, needs enquiry. He has not eslablished malafide on the part of the officers concemed because the order was passed by the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture (Veterinary) Services, govemment ofChhattisgarh, Raipur. 6. Transter is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has timited jurisdiction to interiere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place, forever, by Court orders. At this stage, it is not necessary to exatmine validity ofthe transfer. 7. The legal position in case of transfer is well settled that court should exercise its jurisdiction only in case of proved malafide, non- competence of the ofticer passing the order or violation of mles and regulations; applicable to the employees. 8, There is no merit in this petition. The present petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs, Sahu Sd/- SarishK.Agnihom Judge