IW Ti'iE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ‘5) (g i [2007 S3 Kn. swam MESHRAM awé a/bmk 457m. D/o Late, ShrlB L Meshram By PETITIONER 4 (1.4%) Post (Supermtendent) Ass1stant Teacher Ashram Shala, Kilepal, Block Bastanar, Tahsil, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) gERSUS RESPONDENTS X' State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralya Raipur.(C.G.) 2. , The Collector— Bastar , Jagdalpur, Bastar (C.G.) 3,,» Assistant Commissioner TribaLWelfare Jagdalpur, Bastar (C.G.} 4 Block Education Officer Block, Bastanar, Jagdalpur, Bastar (C.G.) \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226' OF THE CGNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT 1N THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS ETC AND FOR APPROPRIATE ORDER] QRDE'IE; DIRECTION Z DIRECTIONS, ) “M 1 0‘ ; HtGH COURT OF CHHATTQSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. 169 of 2007 Petitioner Ku. Sajoli Meshram Versus Respendents State of Chhattisgarh & othe.rs SB: Hcn'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. An}u Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. O R D E R (Passed an this 28‘" day 0f February, 2(307) The followéng order of the Court is passed by satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. By this petition the petitiener has impugned the transfer erder dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure PH}. whereunder the petitioner has been transferred frdm Ashram Shaia Kiiepal. Block — Bastanar to Kenya Ashram Mundagaen. Biock ~ Bastar. within the same terms and condittons. The transfer of the petitioner is within the same district i.e. Jegdaipur. 2. According to teamed counsei appearing for the petitioner the name of the petitioner is pieced at seriat number 46 in the impugned order. wherein it is mentioned 'on her own expenses'. When the petitiener pointed out that she has never made a request for her transfer then the same mistake was rectitied vide order dated 4.9.2006 (Annexure Rlt) and the transfer sf the petitioner has been made on the administrative ground. 3. Learned counsei appearing for the respondents submits that the order dated 4.9.2006. rectifying the error was conveyed to the petitioner, even then the petitioner has iiied this petition on 2.1.2007 without enoiosing‘the order dated 4.9.2006. @ 4. There is no other ground of chanenge urged by the petitioner. The order dated 7.7.2006 was passed in public interest due to administrative exigency aiong with 81 more employees. i dc net find any inmmiiy in the impugned transfer order. 5. Be that as it may. it is weii settied principle of iaw that transfer is an incident of service and it is fer the empioyer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in View public interest as r well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to. interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere onty in the case of proved malat‘rde, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 6. in View of the above. this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. l Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri f Judge l Thakur