c^ IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 WRIT PETITIONfS) N0. 6 I C>€)1'2009. PETITIONER: "Nathurain Mahobiya, son of Shri Chironji Lal Mahobiya, aged about 52 years, occupation Rural Agriculture Extension OfGcer, Bilaigarh, Disbrict Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus Resp^ndeiits ^^. •'^'^•'ifjoy'" ...'•r't'sy^...''' .?•••" ^•s^y^'"' ^yy' ^' ,<» ffl' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Agricultural Department, Dau Kalyan Singh .Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Agriculture Lavandi, Raipur, Disbrict Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1. Deputy Director, Agriculture, Collectorate Compound, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4- Sub Divisional Officer, (Agriculture) Block Bilaigarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERfS): .»Ri HiGH COURTOFCHMATTiSGAJ^H : BiLASPUR WRiT PETiTiON (S) N0.5150 OF 2009 PETSTiONER Nathuram Mahobiya RESPONDENTS ., Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Oihers (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Sndia) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri K.N. Nande, counsei for the Detitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panei Lawyerforthe State. 2. 4. 5. ORDER(ORAL) (Passsd on this 1ntn day of September, 2009) Heard learned counsei for the oarties. Chalienge in this petition is to the order dated 22-8-2009 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the Deputy Director (Agricuiture), Raipur, v^iereby the Sub Divisional Agricuitural Officer, Bhilaigarh, has been directed to give effect to the transfer order dated 30-6-2009 (Annexure - P/1) by relieving the petitioner from the present piace of posting to join at the new piace of posting. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits ihat the order dated 30-6-2009 is vitlated, as copy of the same was not endorsed or intimated to the peiitioner before oassing the order cjated 22-8-2009 direciing the Sub Divisional Agriculturai Offioer, Bhiiaigarh to reiieve the pet'rtioner. Learned oounse! further submits that the deiay in communicating the transfsr order is confrary to the ground of administrative exigencv. Per oontra, iearned oounsei appearing for the State submits that the delav in communicatina the order dated 30-6-2009 does not vitiate the order, as the same wouid be aiven effect to onlv after the order has been intimated to the Sub Divisiona! Agricuitural Offioer, Bhiiaigarh. have heard learned counsel appearinti for the parties, oeriised the pieadings and the documente appended thereto. Administrative fcf 1 !*^ "]. c, '9 i^.^_,fy 'I'&'SKS'S-'" 7. ^" Gowri exigency does not mean urgency aione. Exigency may mean something more i.e. chan.ge in set up for smooth administration. It is not only the immediate change, but the administration may keep in mind the functioning of the set up for a long period. Thus, the contentfon of the petiiioner that the impuaned transfer order does noi come under the purview of administrative exigency 's reiected. As far as deiay 'm communicating the order is concemed, it is not vitiated, as the order dated 30-6-2009 couSd not be given effect to immediateiy i.e. from the date of passing of order and the effect was given oniy after the communicating the same to the petitloner. The petitioner has not chailenged the transfer order on any other grounds nameiy; maia fide, violative of statutory provisfons and lack of competency of the offfcer. There Is no iilegalily or infirmity in the order. The same is just, proper and does not warrant any interference of this Courf. Be that as it may, it is weil-settled principie of law Ihat transfer/posting of an empioyee is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/emplovee be posted, keeping in view publte interest as weli as administrative exiflencv. This Court has iimited iurisdtetion to interfere with the Iransfer matter and exceot in the cases of proved ma/a ftfe, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity wiih the rulss and regulations. (See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Others)- This fe not a csse where any permissibie grounds ss stated above has been raised. Thus, Ihis pefition being devoid of merit is tiabie to be and is dismissed at the motion staae itseif. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge (2004)123cc299