c4)? m7” @ mam? gamma IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR a / WRIT PETITION (S) No. /2oo9 Kishore Kumar Sori S/o Shri Govind Ram aged about 43 years, resident of village Girhola, Charama District Kanker (C.G.) PETITIONER .- VERSUS x 1. State of Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS submit as under:— through the Secretaxy, Department of Land Records, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Dept. of Land Records, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector Land Records Branch, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUIANCE OF MANDAMUS, CERCIORARY PROHIBITION ETC. OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTION OR ORDER The petitioner above nam ed ‘ most respectfully begs to lQ HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 6741 of 2009 PETITIONER Kishore Kumar Sori. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Rahui Jha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 18L; day of Noventber, 2GO9) By this petition, the petitioner impllgas the order dated 315‘ July, 2009 (Annexme P14) whereby on disposal of W.P.(S) No. 1044/2008 on 8m July, 2009* on the gound that the same has become infructuous, the Collector, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, directed the petitioner to comply with the earlier transfer order dated 29m January, 2008. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially transferred vide order dated 29m January, 2008 from Patwari Halka No. 10, Malgaon to Patwari Haika No. 24, Revenue Inspector Mandal and Tahsil. Kanker to village Uiiya, Patwari Halka No. 24: Revenue Inspector Manda], Bande, Tahsil Pakhanjoor. 3. Shri Jhar learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that since the ett‘ect and operation of the aforestated transfer order dated 29th January, 2008, was stayed by this Court on 20m February, 2008, even atter dismissal of the writ petition on the g‘ound of becoming infructuous, the respondent- authorities could not have insisted upon compliance of the said transfer order dated 29m January, 2008. The ahove contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not sustainable in law. Ifthe impugied transfer order was stayed by this court at the preiirninary stage and ultimateiy the petition was dismissed on being having become infructuous, consequently, the effect would he that the b3 (a4 ém’iiai arder 0f trmsfer survivag. The, gecom’i comeniion that the respondent- authorities 3hou1d have passed a iiesh transfer order is also dis- countenancw as both the contentions are contrary to the well-settied principles of law. 5. it' is well-settled that transfer is an incidenEe of service and it is for the employer to decide aSto where a particular oiiicer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jutisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter exceyt in the cases of proved malaiide, non-competence of authority paesing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View of public interest and administrative exigeney. {See E..P,Royappa v. State of Tamil Nada and anerher’. Unior; ofindia and another v. Janardhan Debanarh & anotherz, State oft/IR and another v. SSKourav and others? and MOM; Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. & Others"). Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugied order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference. 7. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed, Sdl— fgg-A/Kr: ] , Satish K. Agnihotri k Judge i 1m (4‘) soc 3 2 {2064) 4 SCC 245 3 (”1995) 3 scc 27a 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150