HXGH CGURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \VRIT PETITIGN gS‘) N0. 2230 (£2008 Smt. R.K.Sahu, Wlo B.L.Sahu, aged about 46 years, presently posted 311d working as Ill—charge: Principal, mm“ (Dismc: Institute of Education Tramang), FETITIGNER Janjgit, District Janjgh‘-Champa (C‘GJ VERSUS . Siate of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretaxy, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Buiidillg, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) RESPGNDENT S 2. Director, Public Instmctions: Chhattisgarkg Raiyur 3. (CG) District Education Ofiicer, District Janjgir-Champa 4. Smt. Kamayani Kashyap, Pn‘ncipal Governmem Girl5 Champa (CG) (CG) Higher Secondary SchooL Champa, DiStrict Janjgir— WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTETUTION QE Pregemz )'4 INDIA le Shri Satish K. A ni . SB: Ho’ ; Shi'i Miss B.D.Guru, Sunita Jain, Advocate Panel Lawyer for the for petitionsr. the State/respondem Noi 1 to 3. Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate for the Caveator/respondem No. 4. ORAL GRDER (Passed on 015‘ day of May, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ to quash the order dated 09.04.2008 (Armexure P/l), whereby ihe petitioner was transferred oom office of the Incharge Prineipai, District Institute of Education Training (for short ‘DIET’) District Eanjgir—Champa to the post of Principai, Government Girls Higher Secondary Schooi, Champa. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a maiafide exercise of power as in the order dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure W2), her name was not shown and subsequentiy, in order to accommodate respondent No. 4, the impugned order has been passed. Shri Guru further eontends that the impugned order is not in coordination with the office of the Chief Minister. He next contends that f:“ :a h ho ' J n 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