$§WQ§Q @@m@h N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAsPUR (c G ) w.P. (s) No. £32% OF 2009 PETITIONER /Dr Harlshankar Chandrakar, Aged about 35 years S/o Shrl Bharat Lal Chandrakar Vety Asstt Surgeon Block— Gunderdehl Distt. Durg (C G ) ‘ VERsus _ /'’ ESPONDENTS 1. étate Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through — Secretary, Agriculture (Pashuplan) Dept. Ministry D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. [‘Direcotor Pashu Chikitsa Sewayen Raipur (C.G.), ms“- Kaiwqw) 3. zDy. Director, Pashu Chikitsa Sewayen Durg (C.G.), mgH F Duya (5.3) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I R \ W 3‘ N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION gS) NO.5236 OF 2009 PETiTiONER Dr: Harishankar Chandrakar Versus RESPONDENTS State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Articie 226 of thé Consfétution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihetri, J. Present:— ShriSomkanéVerma,counseiforthe petitioner. ‘ Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Pane! Lawyer for the State. CRDER {QBVAL} (Passed on this 1 4‘“ day of September. 2009) With the consent of ieamed counsei appeafing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. Chalienge in this petition is to the order dated 29~6~2009 (Annexure - PH) whereby the petitioner has been transferreé from Bicck Development Gunderdehi to Veterinary Hospital Saja within the district Darg. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad on the ground that the order hasvbeen passed during the mid-session and against the transfer policy. Learned counsel submits that there is 'no administrative exigency in transferring the/petitioner from the present place of posting. Per contra, Shri Bhaduri, teamed Panei Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the transfer order has been passed on the basis of administrative exigenoy and on the reoommendation of he concerned ln-Charge Minister. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The petitioner has N) t not chaiienged ’zhe transfer order, on £egaHy permissible grounds excent the afore—stated grounds. There is no iliegality or infirmity in the impugned transfer order. The same is just, praper and dues not warrant anv interference of this Court. 6. Be that as it may, it is weil-settled principie of iaw that transfer/ nesting of anv empioyee is an incidence of service and it‘is for the emniover to decide as to where a particuiar officerlempioyee be posted, keeping in view pubiic interest as weii as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved male fide, non. competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being'in conformitv with the rules and reguiations. (See Kendriya Vidyaiaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Cthers1). There is no chaiienge to the impugned order on the ground of breach of statutory provisions or maia tide. This is not a case where any permissibie grounds as stated above has been raised. 7. Thus, this petition being devoid of merit is iia‘oie to be and is accordingiy dismissed at the motion stage itseif. However, it is made ciear that dismissai of the writ petition shali not come in the way, if the pending representation of the petitioner is considered and decided. in accordance with law and on its own merits. J 5d]- , iSatish K.Agnihotri; ‘ . , l Judge Gowri ’~ (-2004) 12 soc 299