m" y HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR ffiTmONER RE8PONDENTS WRFT PETmON (S) No. 3809 o{200S -......- : Arvind Iha Aduntay, aged about 5.2 yeMs, son . ^ SBn Jagdanfea I)as Acffliita^^pt^eHtIy workiug as - Drau^itsman, Projeet Co- ordinatot^EsEecuttve EngineCT <aim Menibff Secretary, Under Umt No. 1, Pradhan Mautri GramSadakYqjna-Sai^rii(C.G;) , VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat Evam Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Dau Kalyan Sin^i Bhawan, Raipiir (C.G.) 2. The Additional Secretary, Panchayat Evam Graniin Vikas Vibliag,Maatralaya, Dau Kalyau Siagh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector Evam Atfeyaksh, PMiyojana Kriyaoivayan Bcayee, Distt Raigarii (C.O.) 4. Chief Exeeutive Officer, Zila Paffihayat Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) 5. Executive Engiaeer, Unit No. 1, R-aAan Msastti Gram Sadak Yojana- Raigarii (C;@.) 6. V.M.Shanna, Drau^itsaiaii, Kariyojana Kriyanvayan Dcayee No. 1, Pradtaninantri Qram Sadak Vcgaaa, Jaajgu-Chaa%>a (C.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE eONSTITOnON QF WDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri SaUsh K^Afflilhatri.J. tsaS^, Present: Sfari AV.Shruttiar, Advocate forthepetitKner.;" SSm Ajay Dwivedi, Depu^r Govemment Advocitfe fortheSt^e/ respondent No. 1 to 4. ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^- te^^ ORALOKDER ..:::,--:.:-,...-.^ : . (Passed on 18°' dayof Jflly,2008) ^ 1. The petitioner dallaiges tfae legality and validity of the wder dated 30.6.2008 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petiti(M»erhas been transfeired Irom Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Raigatli, to Pariyojna Kriyatvaym Dcayee No. l, Pradhan MaBlri Gram Sadak Yojna, Janjgir-Gfaampa, on administrative eroumis. 2. Shri A.V.Shridhar, leamed eounsel appeari^ fw Ihe petitioner subniits that the impuened transfer order is malafide on the .a-ound that tiie respoadent -2- No. 6 has showm iasubordiaation by not camplytag with the wder passed ea-lier. The lettar dated 11.6.2008 (AaneMire P/8) and 20.6.2008 (Anafixiro P/9) wtoereby ttie respondent No. 6 was directed to suhmit his explanation for non compliaace of the earlier transfer order tcad tiiereaftw one more opportunity was yaated to the respondent No. 6 to comply with the earlier transfer order dated 6.6.2007 (Amiexure P/5). D^pite the fact Ifaat th» respondent No. 6 has been an delinquent oflScer, he has been accommodated by transferring him from Janjgir Champa to the place ofposting wherein flie petitioner is at pr^ent posted i.e. Raigarh. 3. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadnes and documents appended fhereto. The petitioner has ehallenged the legality and validity not ofhis transfer order but tfie actions taken by fte arfto<xi m case ofthe respondent No. 6. 4. The petitioner has fiuther not established diat how the malafide can be established if some alleged undue consideration is shown to tiie rraip(mdent No. 6. The petitioner has been transferred dus to attaunistrative wdganey wherein no malafide has been proved. Wilfa regard to th&tuther pemussibte younds i.e. non-eompetence ofthe oflRcer eonceraed or violation ofstatutwy rules and regulatitMis, no ease has been made out. So far'as the tiaasfer mda offhe petitioner is concemed, that appears to be on admmi^ative asigency warranting no interference. This is not for tiie Court to conaidlw the transfer ofthe respondent No. 6 at the behest ofthe petitioner. 5. It is well-settled principle oflaw fhat Iranster is aa iiwidence ofserviceaidit is for the employer to decide as to where a parfeuliu' ofi&cer/a^loyee be posted, keeping in view pubEc mta-est as well as adininB&^ive emgeney. This Court has limited mrisdiction to intertere with the transfer matter and -^^ -t. w.^ -3- except in the cases ofproved naalafiide, nMi-competenee ofauthority passing the transfer order and not being in confomuty with the rules aad regulations. 6. Thus, this petition is dismissed beine devoid ofmerit. No order asto eoste. Anut Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge