SIGLE/BENCH G3 EFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH CQRT OF CHHATrISGARH AT _ BILASPUR w.P.(S).No._ §¥§l /2og9 Kishor Ram Nona; son o-Sri Bandhu Ram, aged about 41 years, Hostel Superintendent, Maanpur Dlstt Sargu1a (CG) VERsu State of Chhattisgarh,'through / the Secretary, Department o rrbal Weifare, Dau Kalyan Smg’ Bhawan Ralpur (CG) The Secretary, Madhya Prades Vanva5l Sewa Mandal Mandla (MP The Collector (Trlbal Welfare) Dlstt , Sargu1a (CG) The Department OrganiZer, Madhya 'Pradesh Vanvasi Sewa Mandal Department Office Ambukapur Dlstt SarguJa (CG) Head Master - Incharge, Madhya Pradesh Vanvasi Sewa Mandal, Middle School — Maanpur,,Tahsil — Samri,Distt. Sarguja (CG). ’ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT, WRITS, DIRECTION ETC TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER / RESPONDENTS N s U h fh PETxTIONER / s f T h h ) , HIGH cOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ‘ ’ ¥ V » _ ’ITuP‘IjT‘s P TTI Versus , ' State of Chhattisgarh and others “(Writ Petition ynderArticleZZS of the Constitution of India) V e'Bench; b es is tish‘K.A ni o ' Presentre ‘ShriArun Shukia.‘oounselforthe petitioner. _ " Shri Y. S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate G'eneraifor the State.— BESPONQENTS , IORAL oRDER ' (Passed on this o7?" day of October, 2009) ' With the consent of ieame....o nsei appearing for the partiesi the petition is heard finally. ' I‘ (2) , This is a second attempt-Vby'the petitioner to impugn theoroerdated‘ petitioner; 14-06-2009 who (Annexuye is working P11)fpas’s‘éd “as _Hos"teisuporin‘tehdeiit'. 'byfth'e‘ ,re'spdriiae‘nth’Noz Diotriot surgf‘uja; whereas? has the been transferred to Tribai',Hostei. Rewati, District Surgujo., The petitioner- j disposed has earlier of impugning on 30437-2009 this very‘order (Annexure in P12)‘with W;‘P.(S;)No.39l63/2009 a direction to thop‘etitaoher which was ; to make a: representation within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the same would be decided by. the authorities concerned within a period of three Weeks. The representation ubmitted byrthe' petitioner was'considered and rejected on 16-09-2009 Annexure P16) by the respondent No.2. ' The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 1 6-09-2009 (Annexure P/6), also. 3. The mam chalienge or the petitioner in this writ heation is that the decision in the representation is not proper andirregularon the ground that the petitioner is 100% disabled and hecould not be transferred to any other place ‘ i ' 4. ‘l have heard learned counsel for the parties. and the documentsappended thereto.‘ i '5. Be that as it may.toncethe petitioner hasjoinedthe seniice. in such a condition wherein there are no rules. orhreg’uhtions, whichkprohibits _r perused the pleadings ' Si l Ho ’ i v ' s ~ ( ‘ . ,1. transfer of a disabled petson from one place to another mace the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right posting at one place forever The respondent No 2 has rightly rejected the representation stating that there is no Irregulanty In the transfer The petitioner has not raised any other permissible grounds re proved mala Iide breach of rules and regulations and lack of competency of the officer There Is no Illegality or Infirmuy In the order The same Is just proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court Even otherWIse the petitioner has not been shifted from one district to another district but it appears that the petitioner was posted from one area to another area Within the same district 6. lt is well-settled principle of law that transfer/posting of an employee is an incidence of sewice and it is for the employer to demde as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in View public interest as ‘well 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 conformny With the rules and regulations (See Kendriya \fdyalaya angathan v Damodar Prasad Pandey & Others‘) This is not a case where any permisSible grounds as stated above have been raised . Thus this petition being dev0id of merit is dismissed at the motion stage itself d. Satlsh K Agnlhotr “ / Judge 1 200 12 scc 299 (4) S 7 S/