> sv»&L1£Bt^ Cflc=^~ INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( S) No. ^£?Z^ Of 2010 PETITLONER: RESPONDENTS: Rajendra Kuraar Shakya S/o Late Shri Chhotelal Shakay, aged- aboi.it 50 years, at present working as Assistant En^neer^ Public Works Departnient, Sub Division No.2^ Kondagaon^ District Bastar(CG). Versus ^l. The State of Chhattisgarh, through fh-e Sepretary, PubUc Works Departinent, Maatralay at D.K.S- Bhawaa^ Raipur (CG). ^2. The Eengineer-in-Chief^ Public Works Departm.en.t, Raipur (CG^ 3. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Departaieiity Kondagaon, District Bastar (CG). ^ 4. Bhojraiu. Gotti, Assistant Engineer^ PublLc Works Departm-en.t, Sub Division No.2, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (CG). WRIT PEriTIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 6 HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (SINO. 6575 OF 2010 Versus Respondents Rajendra Kumar Shakya The State of Chhattisgarri & Others WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTlTUTiON OF INDIA Ghri <SSushii Dubey, Government AdvocaSe for the State. 17sr By this petition, the petitioner seeks to chatienge the legality and vaiidity of the order dated 5.7.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Kondagaon to Bijapur. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post ofAssistant Engineer, when the }nea order dated 5.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) was passed transferring the petitioner from Kondagaon to Bljapur. The pefitioner was not retieved, becayse, nobody was transferred tothe post ofthe petitioner and no reliever was there for him. Later on, by subsequent order dated 23.9.2010 (Annexure P-3), respondent No.4wastransferredtotheplaceofthe petitiorier, but he was aiso not reHevedlfor the reason that no reiiever was availabie for him. Subsequently, by order dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-4), the Divislonai Commissioner has directed the competent authority to relieve respondent No.4 fQrjoining at the place ofthe petitloner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the order dated 5.7.2010 was not immediately executed, therefore, the petitioner continued his establishment at his present p!ace of posting and he took admissions of his chjldren in thejiocal institutions at his previous place of posting for the academle session 2010-2011. Shri Koshta also submits that if the impugned order is executed afterabout 4 months, it shall affect the studiesof ioner, who 4. On the other hand, iearned counsel appearing for the Stete ^ supporting the impugned transfer order submits thatthe same'has m m ..'^ ^' ;ashok 7. exigency and the for ever. Thus, z. on the basis of no right to work ina particular ptace there 1s no merit in this petition andthe same may i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. There is no specific cireumstance, which exist in favour of the petitioner warranting interference wlth the administrative function of the State Government by posting of an employee from one piace to othsr. , 1' Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of sereice. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement statutory rules and regutations. tn thecase on hand, the petitioner has failed to estabiish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere atthe instance ofthe employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappav. Stateof Tamil Nadu and another, Shilp'Boss (Mrs.) anflothersv. State ofBihar &.anothef2,:Sfateiof M.p. and snother v. S.S.Koun' and ofherss, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Otere4 Chief Commercial Manager, Souffi Centra! Raitway, Secunderabad & Others v. G.Ratnam & Others9 and Airports Authority of Sndia v. Rajeev RatanPandey &0thei^). Apptying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and forthe reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in\the case. . : '. In the result. the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto / Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge T 1974(4)8cc 3 :'(-t991;Supp2SCC659 3 (1985) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) 8;SCC 150 :- 5 (2007) 8 SCC212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337 R 1