F- £T~Q IN THE^jON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION(S) N0. S-[fe /2009. PETITIONER: 'n Balaram Da^sena, son of Dev Prasad -0 /1 < <'^^" -.^•v-?.'-'" -..-" ^€^>""..-•"" ,...--:'.^"<^- "' .•.Y>'!.<\-,\.-"''' ^"''l^^'" Da^isena, aged about 50 years, working as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Naharpali, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus < ' ResRpndents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Tribal WeUare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Comnussioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Assistant Conunissioner, Tribal Development, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. <4. CoUector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhatdsgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER AR'QCL£226OFLTHE CQNSTITUTIQN QF INDIA v /• ,<;'^''^-': sli" ^>^' ^' ..^" HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH :,B(LASPUR PETIT!ONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5160 OF 2009 Baiaram Dansena Versus State of Chhattisearh & Others OA/rit petition under Articte 226 ofthe Constitution of india) SingSe Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri C.J.K. Rao and Shri Harish Khuntiya, counse! petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. Generai with Shri P.K. Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 10th day of Septembsr, 2009) 1. Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 2, Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30-6-2CX)9 (Annexure P/1) wherebv the Detitioner has been Sransferred from Kharslva to Lailunga within the District Raigarh. 3. Learned counsei appearing for the pefitsoner, submits that the impugned order is bad on the ground that the petitioner is working in the Government Msddle Schooi whereas in the imouaned order it has been wrongly mentioned as Primary School and the name of the petitioner is also wrongly written. Learned counsel submits that there is no administrative exigency in transfemng the petitioner from the present place of posting. 4. Per contra, Shri Thakur, iearned Dy. Adv. Generai appearing with Shri Bhaduri. learned Panel Lawver for the Siate subnnits that the transfer order has been passed on the recommendation of th® concerned In-Charge Minister. The Hon'bte Supreme Court in Masood Ahsnad "s. State of U.P. and Others , has uphsid that the ' (2007) 8 SCC 150 -2.- r2>~ DUbiic reoresentative or the concerned hflinister mav make recommendation in adminJstrativs exigencv to transfer the smpiovee from one oiace to other olace. Leamed counsel submits that if there is any error with regard to the name of the petitioner and posting place in the transfer order, the same shall be iooked into and aDDropriate order shall be passed. I have heard iearned counsel appearing for the parties, perused ths pieadings and the documents appended thereto. The petitioner has not chailenged the transfer order on iegally permissible grounds except the afore-stated grounds. There is no iliegality or infirmity in the order. The same is just, proper and does not v/arrant any interference of this Court. Be that as it may, it Is weii-settied principie of iaw that transfer/posting of an emptoyee is an incidence of service and it is for the emplover to decide as to where a oarticuiar officer/emolovee be posted, keeping in wew public interest as weil as admlnistrative exigency. This Court has iimited jurisdiction to interfere wiih the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved mafe Sde, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being m conformity with the ruies and regulations. (See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damoeiar Prasad Pandey 8> Others ). There is no chailenge to the impugned order on the ground of brsach of statutory provisions or mala ffcte. This is not a case where any permissibie grounds as stated above has bsen raised. Thus, this petition being devoid of merit te iiable to be and is accordingly dismissed atthe motion stage itself. Sd/- SatishK-Agnihotn Judge 2 (2004)12 SCC 299