& ^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARHAT BIL&SPVR W.P.SS1 N0. 4149/2007 PETITIONER Versus RESPONDENTS 3. 4. P.K.Saliu, son of Shri ChandrahasSahu, aged about 48 years, working as Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Rajnandgaon, Departinent of Irrigation (Water Resources), Rajnan.dgaon (CG) : The State of Chliattisgarh, through -fhe Secretary, Deparfaaent of Water Resources, Dau Kalyan Siagh Bhawaa, Raipur (CG) The Jouit Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Dau Kalyaa Siagh Bhawaa, Raipur (CG) The Engiaeer ta Chief, Deptt. of Water Resources, Office situated at Raipur (CG) The Chief Enguieer, Maliaaadi Gtodavari Basia, Water Resources Departiaent, Raipur (CG) "*°:-^-.--... WRITJPETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOK (SS: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agaihotrl, J.) Shri N.S.Dhurandar, coimsel for the petifioner. Ms. Biau Sliarma, Panel Lawyer for fheState. ShriAwadh Tripattu, Advocate for the appMcant, has filed I.A. No. 2 application. for impleadment for respondent No.5. (Passed oa this 4th day ofJanuaiy 2008) Leamed couiisel'appeariiig for ttie'petitioner unpugns fhe order dated 6.7.2007 whereby fhe petitiorier P.K.Sahu, workmg as Sub Divisional Of&cer, Sub Division Rajnandgaon, Mahaaadi Jalashay Pariyojna, Rajnandgaon was trausferred to Raipur ia place of respondent No. 5-Devi Singh Kshatn on admiaistrative grouiids. Leanied couasel submits fhat the impugned traasfer order is bad-ia-law on fhree grounds : ?i; E —EB~»BI!&ls-SMa'; •s- ^^ Firsfly, flie petitioner has been transfen-ed earUer fi-om RaipurtoRajnaadgaonon 6.7.2006, vide Annexure P/3, fhereafter wifhia a short period of 20 days he was traiisferred from. Rajnaadgaon to Abhaapur on 28.07.2006 videArmexure P/4. He was agahi traasferred Iroiii Abhanpur to Rajnandgaon on 23.12.2006 vide Aruiexure P/5. It was pertiuent to mention here fhat an aniended transfer order was issued on 28.07.2006 b}?which, fhe petitioner was fraasferred froia Rajnandgaon to Abhanpur vide Aiinexure P/6, which was stayed by fhis Court on 11.08.2006 inW.P. No. 4162/2006 aiid accoidiagly fhe petitioner was workiag at Rajnaadgaon. Again vide impugned traiisfer orderdated 6.7.2006 (Annexure P/l), the petittonerwas agata traasferred to Raipur, fh.at amounts to frequent transfer. Secondly, as per traiisfer poUcy fhere should not be transfer of eniployees more thaa 15% i.e. total strength of fhe cadre. Thirdly, ftie traasfer has been inade within. a periofoffhree years. 2. Ms. Binu Shanna, counsel appearing for fhe State/respondents Np. 1 to 4, subinit Ihat there is no frequent trao.sfer as the petitiouer was trausferred for the last tiine oa 28.07.2006, which was stayed by fhis Court vide order dated 11.08:2006 in W.P. No. 4162/2006 ( P.K.SaIlu Vs. State of Chhatisgarh and Ofhers). Thereafter, fhe said petitionwas disposed of on 16th April 2007 reseryuig liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate order keepiag in view fhe public interest aad administrative ex^ency, without iasistmg on compliance of the impugned traasfer order. 3. In coiiipUance of fhe orderdated 28.07.2006, ttie respondent No.2 has passed the tmpugned order dated 16thApril 2007 keeping in view the adnurdstrative exigeuey aad public uiterest. TIius, fhe chaBerige of fhe petitioner on fhe poiat of fi'equent traasfer is not correct, :. , '' .' : : ! . ' • "c-£-,^.~.: 3- 4. Wifh regard to second contention that, by flie impugned transfer order, ruore than 15% einployees, contrary to transfer poUcy, have been traasferred, leamed couasel appearixig for the State subinits that the total strengfh ofthe cadre is 786 aad out of fhat 113 ofiicers have been traiisfeired. This is m.uch less than. 15%. 6. In regard to fhe fhird contention fhat, trausfer wifhia fhree years is bad, has no basis. Thus, aB fhe contentions of fh.e leamed counsel for (he petitioner deseryes to,be rejected. 8. It is weU setUed principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service aad it is for fhe einployer to decide as to where a particular of&cer/eiaployee be posted, keepiag in view pubUc interest as weU as adiainistrati.ve exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to iaterfere ia the traasfer inatter aad this Court can iuterefere only iu the case of proved inalafide, non-coinpetence of authority passiag the traasfer order and transfer order nofbeuig in conformity wifh the rules arid regulations. 9. However, leamed counsel for the petitioner subinits that fhe petitioner is ui difEculty aad he should be graiited 15 days tinie to coinply wifh fhe order to which counsel for the State has no objection. 10. In view of fhe above, the petitioner niay be permitted to remaia on fhe piesent place ofposting for 15 days Ironitoday. 11. The pefitLon is accordiagly, disposed of. Suguna ..J^'^ s^£^_