HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2230 01‘2998 PETITIONER Smt. R.K.Sahu, W/o B.L.Sahu, aged about 46 years, presently posted and working as In-charge Principal, DIET (District Institu‘te of Education Training), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RE$PONDENTS H State of Chhat‘tisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S, Building, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2. Director, l’uialic Instinctions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) 3. District Education Officer, District Janjgir—Champa (CG) 4. Smt. Kamayani Kashyap, Principal Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Champa, District Janjgir— Champa (CG) WRXT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agm'hotri, J. Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Sunita Jain, Fanel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. l to 3. Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Atlvocate for the Caveator/respondent No. 4. QRAL ORDER (Passed on 015‘ day of May, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ to quash the order dated 09.04.2008 (Annexare P/ 1), whereby the petitioner was transferred from office of the Incharge Principal, District Institute of Education Training (for short ‘DIET’) District Janjgir-Champa to the post of Principai, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Champa. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a maiaflde exercise of power as in the order dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure 13/2), her name was not shown and subsequently, in order to accommodate respondent No. 4, the impugied order has been passed. Shri Guru iiirther contends that the impugned order is not in coordination with the office of the Chief Minister. He next contends that )U. ’ ' narwa,/ !”zd the petitioner was transfelred aiier completion of six months on the new place of posting. Thus, this amounts to frequent transfer. The respondent No.4 was transfened as Principal, Government Girls Higher Secondary Schooi, Champa, District Janjgir—Champa, but she did not join the place, so the imyugned order was passed to accommodate her. Be that as it may, ony on the basis of the some transfer order, it is not l sufficient to establish that there was a proved malafide against the authorities. So far as power to post an employee in the public interest is concerned, it vests with the employer-Government. The State- respondent can post an employee anywhere in the pubiic interest and in administrative exgency. This Court should not interfere in the matter of i transfer unless there is very compelling reasons to do so. No permissible ground i.e. roved maiafide, non-competence of the) officer passing the p order or violation of rules or regulations exists in this matter or raised by the petitioner except alafide which stands not proved. It is well-settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the ployer to decide as to Where a particular officer/emploee be posted, keeping in View public interest as well as y administrative eigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved malafide, non- ompetence of authorit passing the transfer order and not being in c y conformity with the rules and egulations. Thus, this petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed, summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge r” 4, . av m em x r