^* S s?~-~ KB. is^Lf: BfeNCF^ er^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER w.p.fsiNo. ^r/^e /2009 R.K. Sharma S/o Shri Bharat Lal Sharma, aged about 49 years, Occupation Service, posted as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer Durg, District Durg C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS .Af. ^yy/ ..••' ^^•Q.'t-k.---'' fxy ..*' .^5' i^ y ^^t. 'v-' >.v ^^ ^A w s?' • 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Agriculture Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. / 2. The Director, Jal Grahan Kshetra Vikas (Hariyali) Karykram, Vikas Aykut Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan ( Jal Grahan prakoshtha) Civil Line Raipur C.G. 3. Shri A.K. Sonwane S/o D.T. Sonwane, aged about 44 years, R/o Q. No. 117 Poonam Colony, Rajnandgaon C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE^OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN_THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION / ORDER IN THE^LIKE NATURE ETC. n/rAv TPTTTC? TtTjELd-cis-sry^-K'dixn T rfnk.r>j^oTrTn -i "'iS /'^•"'^ "1 ^'^vs'" ("^f^iaa HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRFT PETmON fS) No. 6490 of2009 PETmONER .RESPONDENTS R.K.Sharma. VER8US The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION QF DiDIA. SB: Hon'Ue Shri Satish K. As'nlhotri. J. Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri P.K.Bhaduri, Paiiel Lawyer for tiie State/respondciite 1 & 2 ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 10°day of November, 2009) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 31 October, 2009 (.Annexure P/l) passed by fhe Secretary to the Govemment, Agriculture Department, whereby the represeirtation filed by the petitioner against the order ofhis transfer fi-om Durg to Kabirdham, has been rejected. ; Vide the order dated 29 June, 2009 ^•tenexure P/3), the petitioner working as Assistant Soil Conservation Qfficer, Durg, was transfen-ed to Durg, as Assistant Director, Agriculture (Surgarcane) Kabirdham, and tfae respondent No. 3 was teansferred vice versa. Chairenging the said order, Ifae petitioner filed a writ petition being No. W.P.(S) 3166 of 2009. The said petition was disposed ofvide order dated 6 July, 2(X)9 with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to tiie respondent authorities. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities which was considered and decided, and Ihe petitioner was allowed to work at the present place of posting i.e. at Durg vide order dated 18 August, 2009 (Annexure A/5). By fhe said order, the transfer of the respondeirt No. 3 from Rajnandgaon to Durg automaticaily stood cancelled. Thereafter, Ifae respondent No. 3 also filed a writ petition being No. W.P.(S) 5171/2009. The said petitioK was disposed ofvidsorder datsd 14 SeptenAer, 2009 with a direction to the respondent to grant an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 3 as well as the petitioner herein afigr givii^ them notice ^•-^ ^-<- .ajmt andtocQnsidertheir cases and pass appr<yriate orders m public interest and admimstrative exigency. From perusal ofthe impugned order dated 31 October, 2009, it aiyears fhat the order was passed after considering all tfae aspects ofthe matter and after afibrdine opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3. The petrtioner was directed to join at Kawardha and the respondent No. 3 was allowed to continue at Durg as he had alreadyjoined his place ofposting at Durg. The order impugned is legal, just, proper and does not warrant anv interference. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ofGcer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as adminisfrative erisency. Thfe Court has limited jurisdiction to mterfere wift Ihe transfer matter except m tiie cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authorily passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules «idregulatinis. The petitioner/employee camiot be parmitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interert and admimstrativeesdgeney. (See E-P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another', Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another^, Slate ofMf. and another v. S.S.Koun' and olhers^ andMoM. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. & Others'). '. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to Ihe impugied wder im any peraussible legal grounds as aforestated, wiuranting interference. 6. For the reasons as aforestated, Ihe petition is dismissed. Sdl- Satts.^^.^ oW jud§e 1(1974)4SCC3 ;(2004)4SCC245 1 (1995)3 8CC 270 * (2007)8 SCC150