(1) gvwél€gFRJWf 6%(32LJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN (S) No. “(Kg OF 2006 PETITIONER : / MOHAN LAL SONBHADRA, AGED — 49 YEARS, wd 5/0 SHRI DASHRU RAM SAHU, POSTED As - pATWARI, AT — p. H. No. TAHSIL — GURUR, DISTT. A DURG (c. G.) R/o VILLAGE ~ KULIYA, DISTT. — MAHASAMUND. VERSUS v WRIT PETITION UNDER ’ARTICLE - 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f RESPONDENTS : / 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH — THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR { RECEIVED—COPY r 2. THE COLLECTOR, i .UJAA‘ (LAND RECORDS BRANCH) DISTRICT — DURG (C. G.) cnznx ma G BlLAswR r! ; g} 06 ,3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER ( R ) BALOD, DISTRICT — DURG (C. G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (s) No. 4956 of 2006 Pe‘l'i‘rianer Mohan Lal Sonbhadra Versus Responden-rs 'ru'fe of Chhu‘f‘l’isgarh & ofher‘s S $ingl¢ Bench: Hon'bfe Mr. Jusfice Safish K. Agnihofri. Shri R.K. Keshar-wani, counsel for 'rhe peTiTioner. Smt Anju Ahuja, Deputy Governmenf Advoca're for 'rhe respondenfs/51mg. ORDER (11fh September, 2006) The pefifioner by order dcrred 301% June, 2006 (Annexure P/1) was *ransferred from Pafwari Halka Na. 12, Block Gurur, Dis'fricf Durg To Pufwar-i Halka Nc. 3, Revenue Inspecfion Circle Khansam, Tahsil Beme‘l’aru, Disfricf Durg. Earlier, lhe pe‘l'i'rianer has filed a W.P.(s) No. 3328/2006 impugning fhe said Transfer order by 'fhis Caur'f. Affer hearing bofh The parTies, direcTed The peTiTioner, wiThouT expressing any opinion on The meriT of The case, To make a deTailed represenTaTion along wiTh copy of This peTiTion and relevanT documenTs To The SecreTary, Revenue DeporTmenT, STaTe of ChhaTTisgarh To decide represenTaTion of The peTiTioner wiThin a period of 30 days from The daTe of receipT of represenTaTion, in accordance wiTh law "\ 1 ‘ ‘ \\ Y V 2 @ 2. The responden‘r No. 1 by order dufed 30.8.2006 (Annexure P/5) considered detailed represen‘ra‘rion af 'I’he pe'ri‘l'ioner and came ‘ro y fhe conclusion ‘rha’r The 'fmnsfer was made sfricfly in accordance wifh fhe Transfer policy. 3’ I have heard learned counsel for 'l'he parlies and gone 'l’hrough The papers, The pefilioner has no? poin‘l'ed oul' any deficiencies in 'l'he order passed by The respondem‘ No. 1, excep‘l' Tha'l' The ordered is n’o‘l’ reasoned one. The order is found jusf and reasonable, by fhis Cour'r. 4. The respondenl's/au‘l’horifies have liberfy 'l'o posf an employee a'f a parficular place in fhe public inferesl’ as well as in adminisfra‘iive exigency, in acco’rdante wi'l'h law. 5. If is well seffled principle of law fha‘f fransfer is an inciden‘l of service and if is fr the employer +0 decide as To where a parTicular officer/employee is To be posTed in fhe inTeresT of adminisTra‘l'ion and public. This CourT has limiTed jurisdiction To inTeere in Transfer maTTers and This CourT can inTerfere only in rf The case of proved malafide, non-compeTence of The auThoriTy is passin The Transfer order, and order noT being in conformiTy g wiTh The rules and regulaTions. 6. For The foresaid reasons, The wriT peTiTion sTands disposed of. W No order as To cos'l's. Sd/— i Satish K. Agnihotra. i. Judge ‘ o a l