@ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGA‘RH AT BILASPUR ( DfB. HON,’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISH & HON’BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, J Writ Appeal No. 38 $f 201 1 Ku‘. Jyanti Kujur, b/o Late Shn Mangaru Kujur; aged about 45 ye%rs, Presentiy working on the post of Superwsor 'Sector—Dumarkachar Integtated child development Protect-Pall Distt Korba (CG) Th State of Chhatttsgarh Through the Department of Woman and Child Development DKs Bhawan Ralpur Distt Ralpur(CG) Appellarit ' (Petitioner) Versus Respondents 1. District Programme Officer Woman and Chrld Development Korba Distt Korba (CG) The PrOject OfFcer Integrated Child Development Prolect Pall Drstt Korba (CG) x; v Pratrbha Smgh Bars Supervrsor Sector Sapalwa lntegrated Child Development Proiect-Pali, Distt Korba (CG) \ Mu» . Present : Shri Chhahi Patel. counsel for the appellant. Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for the lState. keeM . V, ORAL JUDGMENT (23” February, 201 1) Pér Dhirendra Mishra, J The petitioner's writ petition against the order dated 15‘“ July, 2010 whereby she has been transferred as Supervisor from Sector-Dumarkachar, integrated Child Development Project-PaliggDistt. Korba to Project Podi- Uprora, Distt. Korba, against the post of Assistant Project Officer, on administrative grounds, has been dismissed by the impugned order. 2. Shri Patel, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid order has been passed malahdely without there being any administrative exigency, just to accommodate respondent No.4, who has been transferred on her own expenses, in place of the appellant. Respondent No.4 has been transferred while she was ’on probation, just within two months of her appointment, which is not permissible“, 3!, Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned Single Judge, following the well settled principles of law tha transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officeemployee is to be posted, keeping in View the / i e t rl 77 public interest as well as administrative exigency. heid that the Court has liinited jurisdiction to interfere in the transf matters, except in the cases of proved malaflde, non-competence of the authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the ruies and regulations, and the petitioner has failed to establish and prove her contention in reference to malafide exercise of powers. Taking into consideration that by the impugned transfer order. apart from the petitioner, 111 more ofhcers were transferred on their own expenses or on administrative grounds, the allegation of malafide exercise of powers in transferring the petitiorier has been rejected. 5. r After close examination of the pleadings of the respective parties and the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere inethe matters of transfer of the petitioner by the impugned order, which is based on settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and the decision referred to‘in the impugned order. We find no substance in this appeal; the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. f§..-H__.._w_.w._...W T L