.\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. WritADpealNo.134/2011. ARpelSanV Writ Petitioner Rsspondents Vs. 1 2. 3. R.R. Lehrey, S/o. Umarrao Lehrey, aged about 58 years, Executive OfFicer, Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Ltd., Durg, R/o. Padmnabhpuram, Durg (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through jts Secretary, Department of SC, ST, OBC, Mjnority, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam Ltd., B-9, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (CG) Collector, Durg, Collectorate, Durg, District Durg (CG) w &, Present: Shri B.D. Guru; counsel for the appeliant. Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORAL ORDER (08704.2011.) 1. Petitioner's writ petition for direction to respondent authorities to consider and decide his representation dated 05.02.2011 and further, to quash the order dated 22.12.2010 (Annexure-P/5) issued by respondent No.2 whereby he has been transferred from Durg to Dhamtari , has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the smpugned order. \v @) 2. Shri B.D. Quru, learned counse! for the appellant submits that in compliance of order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure-A/2), the appellant has joined the Samiti at Durg. Since the order has already been comp'ied with, the same could not be amended vide impugned order dated 22.12.2010 whereby amending the order dated 15.07.2010, the appeilant has been posted at Dhamtari as before and relieved from the charge of District Committee Durg. The respondents have malafidely passed the impugned order transfemng the appellant from Durg to Dhamtari by giving additional charge of the Samiti Durg to Executive Officer, Rajnandgaon. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitjon with an observation that the petitioner while posted at Dhamtari was having the additiona! charge of District Durg and by order dated 15.07.2010, he was posted at Durg and was given additiona! charge of District Dhamtari and thereafter the aforesaid order has been amendedon 22.12.2010 on account of administrative exigencies and the petitioner was again posted at Dhamtari, the charge ofwhich he was already holding additjonal'y. This cannot be termed as frequent transfer. Further observing the settled principles of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer's prerogative to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency, has declinei(to interfere with the impugned order. 5. After going through the pleadings in the writ petition, documents appended therewith as also the impugned order, we are of the ^s Bini considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity jn the impugned order. We find no substance in the writ appea!. The same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itse!f. —_ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge ay