..)' C^c%2—. iN^E BENi IN THE HIGHCQURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WMT PETITION (S)NO. ,^T3</2006 ^ O.P. Chandra, S/o- Shri G.L. Chandra, Aged about 58 years, Presently working as Sub Divisional OfBcer, Hasdeo R.B.C. Sub Division No. 5, Jarve, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, Deptt. ofWaterResources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 's'^.^-" ^^•^f'".->- ..*-"!V .i?-" l-i..-' -"^-•,^-\>t: ..••*'',d'l;\^?''1 »•'' ,v^''^->"' .«<»' y ^ ^ /2. ifi ^ ,{•.-••' &- Shri R.L. Gautam, S/o- Not known, Presently workmg as Sub Divisional OfBcer, '<t<?^^T e-e^' plPrla' Shirsh Karya Sub Division, 1K.. ^^^ ^ Chuilchadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon, ^^Gv Chhattisgarh. " " RESPONDENTS ^^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA FOR I.SSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI ETC. ^ r^' _11 1 A '^•T •MM.'i. 1 i iRHATBILASF R! iUI ^ iner O.P. Chand Versus -isa 'other ilnal®Bsnch; Hon'ble M". Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. ivastava, ^ Shri Suir.esh Bajai, 6ovt. Adyocate for the res 1/Stats. -tJ^/ OR&E !'l?tb Ths followinq order of the Court was oassed by Satish K. <*ionil 1. The petitioner was emp'ioyed as Sub Divi.sional Office" in the Hasdeo Right Bank Carial, $u'b bivision No. 5, Jarve, &istrict Janjgir'-Champa. By order dal'ed 20.9.2006 (Annexure P/l) from whe"e he was To h'lDna. snr-'sn S.arya 5u& Uiyi; ^huikhadan, District ftainandgaon. The petitioner has fi!ed this pstition impu9ning the transfer orde" dated 20.9.2006 on the oround that the order is contr'ory to the transfer guidelines dated 26.5.2006 as Dassed durinq tne ban perlod. I 'naye heard learned counse! for the parties aid perused the papers. By the impugned transfer or-der, six persons have been transferred, inciuding the petitioner and copy of the same fi.as besn endorsed to the Princioal Secretarv to the Chief »<Ainister. 4. Tne trcnsfe" gusdelines orovides ror :ancellation/modification of the transfer during ths ban oeriod in y co-ordination with the Ch'ief JSAinister. It is submitted by learned counse' appearing for the respondent No. 1/State that the copy of fne transfer order is endorsed to the Chief Minister oniy in those caees where the order wcs passed in co-ordination with the Chier AAinistfii". .I" ths present co.se, ths ifripugned transfer order has been endorsed to the PrinciDc! Secretary to the Chief Mini-ster, wnich cisar'ly tabiishes that the order was passed in co-ordination with the Chisf AAinister as prescrib&d under the transfer guiaelines. The petitioner has not ossailed the impugned tr'&isfer order on any othsr' ground. Thus, ths petition is devoio <?f t?'.e>*i't. 5. It 'is va-e'il ssttied orincioie of law that transfsr is 0.1 IncEders service and it is for the empioyer to decide as to where a particu'Qr' officsr'/eiTipioyae be posted keeping in vlew public Jnterest as weu as aoiriinisTraTiye exiqency. rn.is l.ourT nas ii'r'jted jur'isaiction TO inte"fe"e in the transfe" matter and this Cosj''T can inl^rfsre on'v i" the case of proved mciafids, non-compstence of GUthori-ty pQSsing Alf-he transfer order ano' trcnsfer ordsr not being in confor'mity' wit!' the fules •ri reguiations. ihig psTiTioner'/e.mpioyee cannot &e pei'mitted to remoin at one pbce, forever, by Court orders. At this stoge, it is not nec'essary to examine yaiidity of ~he tronsfer. 6. The writ eetition is acco.-dinQly dismissed. No o"der as tc' costs. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge