71 (9% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.§$\ No. 5348 of 2,008 on of India Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constituti S.L. Yadav PETITIONER Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others ORDER Ha , PASSED ONgO SEPTEMBER, 2008 J Sd/~ _Dhirendra Mishra Jndge i? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR mums, No. 5348 of zoos Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India PETITIONER S.L. Yadav, S/o Shri ’I‘ij Ram Yadav, Aged about 49 years, Presently working as Sub-Divisional Officer, Mini Mata Bango Dam, Sub— Division No.5, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (CG), R/o Champa Road, Near Canal Bridge, At & Post Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir—Champa (CG) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through, the Secretary, RESPONDENTS 1. Water Resources Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG) The Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, State of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG) Shri Chandrika Prasad Ekka, Assistant Engineer (Desig1), O/o Executive Engineer, Mini Mata Bango Canal, Division No.6, Sakti. Present : Mr. P. Diwakar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Mr .Sunil Otwani, Advocate takes notice on behalf of respondent No. 3 and has tiled reply, with a copy to the petitioner. Dhirendra Mishra. J With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. ORDER (Passcd on 30 September, 2008) By the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is Sub Divisional Officer, Mini Mata’Bango Dam, Sub-Division No.5, Shakti‘, has \/ impugned his transfer order dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure P/ 1), whereby he has been transferred as Assistallt Engineer (Design) in the office of the Executive Engineer, Mini Mata Bango Canal, Division No.6, Shakti. Grievance of the petitioner is that he joined his present place of posting only on 23.7.2008 after being transferred vide order dated 7.7.2008 of Annexure P/3, though the said order mentions that he has been transferred on his own expense, but the petitioner never made any request for his transfer to the present place of posting. Thus, he has been transferred twice within a period of less than two months. The aforesaid order has been passed just to accommodate the respondent No.3, who worked only for one year as Assistant Engineer (Design) in the office of Executive Engineer. The order of transfer is also bad as the same has been passed in the mid session. Mr. P. Diwakar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. Surana, Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that though it is settled law that ordinarily the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer as transfer is a part of service conditions of an employee, unless the Court is satisfied that the order of transfer is malafide or the service rules prohibits such transfer or the authorities, who issued the order, were not competent to pass it. However, in appropriate cases, where the transfer is effected malaiidely Within a short period with a View to accommodate any officer, this Court can always interfere. To buttress this argument, various judgments/decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court of MP were cited. On the other hand, Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. AG for the State and Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3 vehemently contended that .in the instant case, the petitioner was transferred to his present place of posting at Sakti on his own request, there is no pleading or evidence to \ 7// Vik Z? i? ’ show that the petitioner was transferred malafldely, on the contrary, from perusal of the impugned order, it would be evident that apart from the petitioner and respondent No.3, by the same order services of two other emcers were also withdrawn hem deputation and they were posted at two diiTerence places. In the case of the petitioner, he has been transferred from the post of Sub Divisional Officer, Mini Mata Bango Dam, Sub—Division No.5, Sakti to the post of Assistant Engineer (Design) in the office of Executive Engineer, Sub— Division No.6 at Sakti, therefore, in View of the settled law that the order of “transfer can not ordinarily be interfered with, unless the same is issued malaiidely or in contravention of the service rules or by any incompetent authority, no interference is called for in the instant petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also penised various judgments/decisions, Cited by the respective parties, dealing with the scope of interference by this Court While exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of transfer. Taking into consideration that the petitioner has been transferred from the oiiice of Sub Divisional Officer, Mini Mata Bango Dam, Sub Division No.5, Sakti to another office of Division No.6 situated at Sakti, l am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned order of Annexure P/ 1 only on the ground that the same has been passed in less than two months by an authority competent to pass such orders. Accordingly, the petition being without substance deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is hereby dismissed. Sd/~ 'Dhirendra Mishra \ ., i Judge