StNGlE 8?W©t .--< p^^^y IN THE HIGILCOURT OFCHHAmSGARH, AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONIS.) No. 393% OF 2011 PETITIONER ^ .^M/ ^y ^y^/" ?^/ J3 ^ •^ j" ^ RESPONDENTS AJAY SAHU, AGED - 35 YEARS S/0 LATE HIRA LAL SAHU, WORKING AS - ASSISTANT GRA.DE - III, AT - DISTRICT OFFICE, DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, RAIPUR, R/0 KALI NAGAR, PANDARI, RAIPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, MANTRALAY, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR . 2. THE COMMISSIONER, WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RAIPUR (C. G.) ./ 3. THE COLLECTOR, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RAIPUR DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) Writ Petition under Article - 226ofthe Constitution of India. ^) ^ \v\ Petitioner Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL/s^PUR WRIT PETSTION (S) N0. 3938 OF 2011 Aiav Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Preseni:- ShriR.K.Kesharwani.Advocateforthepetitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (QRAU (Passed on this 28th day of July, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seete to challenge the legality and validity of theimpugned transfer orderdated 14.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Raipur, whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Raipyr to Gariyaband. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed only to harass the petitioner, as the petitioner is a iow paid empioyee and on account of his transfer, he and his family membere shall suffer irreparable loss. The impugned order is iliegal, arbitrary and against the transfer policy because t»^ecompteCon of the period of 2 % years of service, the petitioner has been transferred. Thus, the impugned order is against the transfer poticy dated 13.06.201 1. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documentsappended thereto. Mere statement of maiafide is not sufficient, because the petitioner has failed to produce any document in support of his contention. Even the petitioner has not chailenge the impugned transfer order on any other admissibte legal grounds such as lack of competence of the ofRcer, who has passed the transfer order. 4. Be that as it may.it is atrite law that transfer/posting is an incldence of service. The Court should not inteitere with the transfer/posting order IN 5. 6. 22- 2 untessthere is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regutations. In the caseon hand, the petitioner has faited to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Govemment to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. Sfate of Tamii Nadu and anoVwf. Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and athws v. State ofBihar & anothe^, Stats of M.P. and another v. S.S.Koun and cMwrs?, Mohd Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Qthers4 Chi^ Commercial Manager, South Cerrtml Ra'lway, Sec'jndsrabad & OttTers v. G. Ratnam & 0»isrs and Airports Authority oflndiav. Rafeev Ratan Pandey SOftera6). Applying the wetl-settled principtes of law tothe fiacte of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no ment in ttie case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto coste. ashck Sd/- K. Judge tn ~' 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (1891)8upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1395} 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007)88cc 212 6(2Qp9)8SCC337