W W’Jl/ @ $§NQLE 'BEN6H IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT - BILASPUR WRIT pETITION (S) No. f’SEé OF 2011 PETITIONER A} K. GAJBHIYE, AGED — 49 YEARS, S/O SHRI KONDBAJI GAJBHIYE, WORKING AS — SECTION OFFICER, AT — C. G. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, PENSION BADA, RAIPUR (c. G.) R/O H — 8, C. G. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION EMPLOYEES COLONY, PENSION BADA, RAIPUR, DISTRICT — RAIPUR (c. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1.“ CHHATTISGARH BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, RAIPUR. THROUGHT — THE SECRETARY, PENSION BADA, RAIPUR (.C G.) THE SECRETARY, ' CHHATTISGARH BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, PENSION BADA, RAIPUR (.C G.) SHRI TAPAN CHATTERJEE, SECTION OFFICER, CHHATTISGARH BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, PENSION BADA, RAIPUR (.C G.) ’Writ Petition under Article — 226 of the Constitution of India. 1. Particulars of the petitioner : As above in cause title. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1556 of2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 25‘ day of March, 201 1) l. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure P11) whereby the petitioner, working as Section Officer in the respondent-Department, at Raipur has been transferred to Divisional Office, Jagdaipur. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed on account ofthe fact that he had made a complaint against the respondent No. 3, who had threatened the petitioner and used abusive languages. Shri Kehsarwani further submits that no administrative exigency exists and in order to harass the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. It is further submitted that there is no sanctioned post of Section Officer at Jagdalpur and further, the petitioner and his wife are taking medical treatment at Raipur. Thus, the impugned transfer order is illegal and arbitrary. He next contends that the \npetitioner has also made a representation against the impugned PETITIONER A.K.Gajbhiye. VERSUS RESPONDENTS z Chhatisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur & Others. transfer order on 15.03.2011 (Annexure P/S) which has not been decided till date. On perusal of the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that there is some personal grudge between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, which cannot be adjudicated upon in this petition as the petitioner has already made a police complaint against the respondent No. 3. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, there is nothing which shows that the petitioner is a victim of‘arbitrary or illegal acts ‘of the respondent authorities. The transfer has been made purely on account of administrative exigency. The respondent No. 3 is not a competent authority either to pass the impugned order of transfer, or have influence on the competent authority as nothing is indicated from any document or materials which are produced in this petition. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide, non— competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules. and regulations. The petitioner has failed to establish and prove his contentions, except making selfsame statement. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. Stare of Tamil Nadu and another], Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anotherz, State of MP. and another v. S.S.K0urav and others3 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & 0thers4 and Airports Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Othersj). 6. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference. Further contention of the petitioner that his representation is still pending consideration, law in this regard is well settled that a statutory representation or appeal has to be decided within a reasonable time i.e. within 3 to 6 months. (See: S.S.Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh6 ). The representation was filed on 15.03.2011 but the petitioner, without waiting for a reasonable time to enable the respondent-authorities to take any decision on his representation, has rushed to this Court by filing this petition on 18.03.2011. , 7. The petition being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed. Sci/- SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge Amit l 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4 (1995) 3 SCC 270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 (2009) 8 SCC 337 (1989) 4 SCC 582 6