lN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. WRIT PETITION (S) No. 33%! 2011 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ; AND BETWEEN : PETITIONER : B.L. Arya, son of Shri K.P. Arya, aged / RESPONDENTS about 53 years, presently posted as Executive Engineer, O/o Chief Engineer Mahanadi Reservoir Project, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Department of Water Resources, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Basin Project, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Shri S.B. Sharma, son of Late Shri SR WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHER SUITABLE WRITS DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS (1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As shown in the cause title (2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As shown in the cause title. Amrito Das, a e VERSUS petitioner, Assistant Engineer (Design), ln-charge Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh 7 HKEH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR \IVRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1272 OF 2011 Petitioner B . L. Arya Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Artio1e 226 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy, Advocate Genera! for the State. ORDER {GRAD (Passed on 7t“ day of March, 201 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to Chaiienge the legaiity and vaiidity of the order dated 31.1.2011 (Annexure Pv1) passed by the Under Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Water Resources, by which the earlier transfer order dated 5.1‘2D11 (Anhexure P-2) has been canceiied. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that by order dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P—2), the petitioner was transferred from Raipur to Janjgir-Champa. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation dated 22.1.2011 (Annexure P—3) for reiieving the petitioner for giving his joining at the transferred piace of posting, but the respondents did not take any steps. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 27.1 .2011 (Annexure P—4) for relieving him. When no action was taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No.677/201 1, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 4.2.2011 (Annexure P-S) with a direction to the respondent No.3 to ensure that the petitioner joins the place of posting at Janjgir- Champa, as per the order dated 5.1.2011. On the basis of the said order, the petitioner submitted representation before the respondent authorities on 7.2.2011 (Annexure P-6) and requested the authority to relieve him, as per the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by this Court. J According to ihe petitioner after submission of the ietter dated 72.201 1, the respondent authorities handed over a copy of the order dated 31.1.2011 stating that the transfer order dated 5.1.2011 has already been cancelied, therefore, there is no question of relieving from the present piaoe of posting, Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities, only to harass the petitioner, passed the order dated 3111,2011 and handed over the same to the petitioner after passing ofthe order dated 4.2.2011 by this Court. Thus, the impugned action of th'e respondent authorities is megai, arbitrary and against the weti settled principtes of law. Thus, this petition. On perusal of the documents, it appears that before passing the order dated 422011 by this Court, the transfer order dated 5.1 .2011 was canceled by order dated 31 .1 .2011 by the respondent authorities and in passing the same, the respondent authorities have not committed any illegality or irregularity. The employer has every right to post the employee at any piace in view of administrative exigency as welt as public interest. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory ruies and regulations and lack of competence, in passing the order. Applying the well—settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. in the result, the writ petition is dismissed. ashok