^ HiGH COURT OF 0-1HATTSSGARH : B1LASPUR WRIT PETITION (S> N0.5061 OF 200@ PETmONER RESPONDENTS Rishi Raj Panyria, S/o Late Shri Mlegh Raj, aged about 29 years, Assistant Teacher, Grade-II, R/o Puran Thaana Bagbahara, Wd. No.3, District Mahasamund (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Women Chitel Development & Social Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Coliector, Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund (CG). 3. District Electorai Officer, Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund (CG). 4. The Project Officer, Women Chilc! Development Bagbahara, Dist. Mahasamund (CG). 0/Vrit petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sonrri<ant Verma, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panej Lawyer for the Stete. ORDER ORAD (Passed on this 7th day of September, 2009) 1) Heard ieamed counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner, by ttiis petition, seeks quashing ofthe order dated 29-6-2009 (Annexure - P/2), passed in req^ect of th^ petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Ekikrit Bal Viicas Pariyojna, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund to Ekikrit Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Kuankoda, District Dantewada. 3) Against the aforesaid transfer order, the petitioner has earlier fited a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3463 of 2009, which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court as withdr®wnby order dated 15th July, 2QQQ, with a direction to the State r-" r Gowri -2.— authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with iaw. 4) After considering the representation of the pefitioner, the order dated 24th August, 2009 (Annexure P/1) has been passed by the State/respondents stating that the transfer order was passed purely on administrative ground and in accordance with the rutes. There is no illegality of infirmity in the order dated 24-8-20C©, The same is just, proper and does not warrant any interference of this Court. 5) Be that as it may, it is well-settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular ofRcer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regutations. (See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangattan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Others ). 6) There is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on the ground of lack of competence ofthe authority in passing the order or breach of statutory provisions or ma/a ffcte. This is not a case where any permissible grounds as stated above has been raised. 7) Thus, this petition being devoid of merit is iiabte to be and is accordingty dismissed at the motion stage itsetf. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge 1 (2004) 12SCC 299