G^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P.fSlNo. Sj-H /2010 S PETITIONER : ^ , Manohar Singh Thakur S/0 Late •^' ;••' {^<>\^~ ..•• ^^^ ...?'^v" ^:y ^-" .v/ ^^ ^•> L.i^** RESPONQENTS : (1) Baliram Thakur, aged about 52 years, working as Sr. Sericulture Inspector, Kosa Beej Kendra, Jilga Dist. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhatti^arh through its Secretary, Department of Rural Industries, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Director (Sericulture), Office ofRural Industries, Directorate, Sonakhan, Bhawan, Sericulture Sector, Raipur (C.G.) (3) Asstt. Director (Sericulture), Reshara Department, Distt. Korba (C.G.) >«-^' ,WRIT:¥>EfITIONUNDERARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ~"wis^ ^ '"%. a, R i^ !' &^ 5 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 5171 OF 2010 Manohar Singh Thakur Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 04th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner was transferred indicating his present ptace of posting at Resham Kendra, Saragbundiya, District Korba, when he was already transferred from Resham Kendra, Saragbundiya to Kosa Beej Kendra, Jilga, District Korba, by earlier order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) and thereafter he started working there. 2. The main and further ground of the petitioner is that the petitioner had not completed 2 % years to a particular place where he was posted by order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P-2). 3. The State, after havingnoticed the mistake in the order, amended the same by order dated 08.12.2010 (Annexure R-1) during pendency of this petition, whereby the mistake was corrected and in place of Saragbundiya, it was mentioned as Kosa Beej Kendra, Jilga, District Korba. This does not come within the ambit of infirmity. The other ground of challenge that the petitioner has not completed 2 Vi years is not available to the petitioner, as there is no restriction either in the policy or otherwise that no transfer to any employee without 2 % years at a particular place. There is no other admissible legal ^. ...•w^ 5 grounds such as lack of competence of the ofRcer, who has passed the transfer order. 4. 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 rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothei2, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others , Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others^. 5. 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. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. ashok Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge