5 c^^ •znT) •«?:^.^_ia ^ l^B^^^...LHi M.I^Mt'^s S^&^^; IN THE HIGH COURT OF^HHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W P, (S) No. ^^/.S'^ OF 2010. PETITIONER y^ ^•fe ^if^? ^a r%^- RESPONDENTS Smt. Gyan Lata Singh, W/o. Shri D. K. Singh, aged about 45 years, Female Health Worker, Sub Health Centre Sonpur, Block Bakawand, District Bastar (C. G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jagdalpur, Distt. District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER^RTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.7715 OF 2010 Smt. Gyan Lata Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sbmkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 3rd of January, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4-10-2010 (Annexure - P/1) whereby the earlier orders dated 16-9-2010 & 24-9-2010 were cancelled and the petitioner was directed to join the new place of posting. The petitioner was working as Woman Health Worker at Sub Health Center, Bakawand, District Bastar. By order dated 15-7-2010 (Annexure - P/2), the petitioner was transferred to Sub Health Centre, Bastanar, Badekilepal, on administrative ground. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 15-7-2010 in a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation. Thereafter, the representation was filed. The order dated 15-7-2010 was cancelled by subsequent order dated 16-9-2010. Now by the impugned order dated 4-10-2010, the order dated 16-9-2010 canceling the earlier order dated 15-7-2010 has been cancelled and the original order dated 15-7-2010 has been revived. 2. There is no specific circumstance, which exist in favour of the * petitioner to interfere with the administrative function of the State Government by posting of an employee from one place to other. 3. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the 12& -'7^*-/ b;!g n -?/ Arun transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administratiye 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.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another^, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others4 Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad <S Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authority of India v. Raj'eev Ratan Pandey & Others ). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. - - Sd/- sat^b K. Agnihotri 3