K. |6» ffl 1ft § 11 1 I? 1 ^ @» 11 £ ££. t^ '^ & t ^ ^ r' ^ '^ vv^ \ .'ri-/\ •^ \^^_ •\ ^ \^ ^' ^?-^ (> \ ''c.\ \ vo '^ -^ ^ m! 33 (t ©: K ^ I %. 2< 1§ §. 8 1 w ^ i ^ l^ ^ Ir SO § iw is s IN j ^M iSfKSS ^^ ?ffi,M S3 r" ^T' L.,—- HTGH COTJR'r OF CHHATriSCrARH AT BITASPTJR WRIT PETITION <8) No. 6044 of2011 y^ PETmONER B-E8PONDENT8 Smt. Va.isha.li Holay. VRRSIJS The Stete ofChhattisgarh & Others. WSIT PE'HTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTnUllON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Ne Shri Satish K. Agniiiotri, J. ^l^.t, Present: Shri Awadh Tnipatb^ Advocate fbrthe petrtioner. Sliri Aj.il Singh, Panel Lawyer for th^ Slaie/respoiidenls. ORDRR (ORAT.) (Passed on 12th day ofOctober, 2011) 1, 'Challenge m this pet.ition is ..t.o the order ciated 15.07.2011 (Amsexiire P/l) whereby, the petitionen workmg as Sup^rvisor a.t Project. Bilha.has been tra.nsferred to Project. Lomii, witNn the sa.me district i,e. Bilaspyn on ^i.dmmistra.tive groimds^ 2, A^ccordmg to leamed coimsel for the petitionen a.ga.mst tfae said tra-nsfer orden the petitioiier ma.de a representation t.o the Colleotor whioh has not yet. been decided, Tlie groimds for challeoge to thcs impiigned orden a.s submitted by Shri Iripathi is that. firstly^ t.he departmeHt. has not ma.de any proposal t.o the Collect.or for traasfer ofthe petitioner from. his preseiit pla.ee ofpostmg t.o the tra.mfCTred place of postiiig^ a.s reqiiired imder the tra.mfer policy dated 13.06,2011. Secondly^ the representation ofthe petitioner m sti!I pesiding corisidera.tioii. 3. On query, ast.o how the petitioner can e§t.ablishthat tlie proposal was not ma.de by the head of the department for transfCTr.mg her from her present place ofposting, Shri Tripathi categoriGalfy states that m other cases also, proposal wa.s not ma,de, thiis, i?3 the i.fist.a.nt case also, it appea.rs that the proposal hci.s Tiot been ma.de. Furthen the .representatioii of the pet.itioner dated nil (Aimexyre P/3) does not cont.am a.nv endorsement ofthe offic^ ofthe Coilect<x, so a.sto establish that the sa.me ha.s actiially been ma.de to the Collector or iiot. F ^s' '%--• Be that as it may, on pemsa! ofthe impugiied order, rt a-ppears that the ColleGton who is competent to pa.ss the transfer orden has taken a-pproval of the Mmister-in-charge as reqiiired imder the tra.nsfer policy dated 13.06.2011, The petitioner has fixrther not produced any material to establish that no proposal was ma.de befo.re tra.nsferring the petitionen except the selfeame stetement. Even otherwise- the impvgned tra-nsfer order misst ha.ve been complied with by tlie pet.itioner till this time a.s it has neither been pleaded nor argiied anythmg in fhis regard that there was a-ny stay of the impu@ied orden nor the impixm-ed tra-nsfer order has beai modified, It is well-settled that tra.nsfer is a.n incidence ofservice and it is for the employer to decide aMo where a particular offieer/employee be posted- keeping m view pliblic mterest as weil as a.dmimstrative exigency. This Court has limited jimsdictioii to int.erfere with the tra.nsfer matt.er except m the cases of proved mala. fide, non- co.mpet.ence ofa.irtfaority passmg the tra.sisfer order and not being m coiifomiity with the mles and regiilations, The petitioner/eaiiployee ca.miot be Dermitt.ed to rema.in at one place .fbrever. Under the provisions of service mles, employer ha.s a.11 the powers to posl a.n employee at a. particiilar place m view of public interest- a.nd a.diisimstrative exigency. (See E-.PMoyappa v. State ofTamil Na^u and anothe^, Union oflndia and anotker \\ Janardhan Debanath & another^, State ofM.P, and another \\ S.SXourav and other/ andAfoM MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others4). In view of the above, the petit.ion is devoid of merit aiid is a.cGordmgly dismissed. —-— sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Asmt l(1y74)4SCC3 2 (2004) 4 SCC 245 3 ^1995) 3 SCC 270 4(2QQ7)8SCC150