.621 HIGH COURT éF CHI-iATTiSGAfii-l' 3ILA$PUIR \" mm: ge‘tition m No. 3433 of 2903 Shahnawaz Khan, Sfo. Late Abdu! Gafur Khan, aged'about 48 years; Food & Civil $upply fnspectcr, Mungefi, BHaspur, R/a‘ Ring Read No2! Biiaspur (CG). Versus Réspendents 1) The State of Chhatiisgar‘n, through Secretary, Petitioner Degar’zment of Food; CM! SuppHes & Consumer Promotion, DKS Bhawan; Raipur (CG). 2‘) Commissioner, Department ox“ Food, Civii Suppiies & Consumer Protection, Raipur (CG). 3) The Coiieotor, Biiaepur, District Biiaspur (CG). Food Controner, Bifaspur Déstrict, AtfPost Bi§aspur (CG). o} Shri Vijay Kumar Knan, Food & Civil Supp£y Enspeotor, Mamahi: District Bifaspur (CG) (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) SC: Hon’bie Mr. Sétish K. Agnihotri, J. Shn' AK. 'Presad, counse! for the petitioner. Present; Shri YIS. Tnakur, Dy. Advocate Generai for the State. ORAL ORDER {Passed on 7‘" day ofJuiy; 2998) Learned oounsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19-6-2008 (Annexure Pit), whereby the petitioner working as Fooo‘ inspector has been transferred from Biock Mungeii, District Biiaspur to Biock Marwahi, District Biiaspur. 2) The first contention of teamed counsei appearing tor the petitioner is that the petitionerwas transferred to Block Marhawai . District Biiascur, from Block Mungeii, District Biiaspur, oniy in September, 2607 and just after nine months, 'ne has again been transferred to Mungeii. The second contention oi teamed counsei is that the respondent No.5 cannot be posted in District Biiaspur as he is a resident of Biiaspur, that is contrary to the policy of the Government. The respondent No.5 is a newiy appointed Food inspector so that he cannot be transferred to any other district as he shouid serve for five years in the scheduied area. Ail the contentions advanced by learned counsei appearing for the petitioner deserve to be rejected on thesimpte ground that the petitioner’s grievance is that he has been transferred after a period oi nine months. \\Th‘ird contention oi the petitioner is with regard to the probiem of the respondent No.5, / I i ‘\ :hich the petitioner couid mt have agitated in this petition it is for the Government ts iook into the compiaints. The petitioner has not impugned the transfer order on the known permiesibie grounds of maia tide, non-competence ef the officer or contravention of the statutory rules and regulations. Fourth contention of the petitioner ie that the impugned order has been passed to accommodate the respondent No.5 When transfer is made, two empioyees have to be disturbed Even if other person has been accommodated, this cannot be heid as maia tide exercise of power, 3) it is weii settied principie of iaw that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide asto whether a particuiar ofhceriempioyee be posted keeping in View pubiic interest as weii as aoministrative exigency. This Court has iimited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy in the case of proved maia tide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the ruies and reguiations. The petitioner/empioyee cannot be permitted to remain at one piaoe, forever, byCourt orders. 4) The petitioner has not made out any case tor interference by this Court in the present transfers 5) in view of the foregoing, this petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingiy, the petition is dismissed, /// //, 5d]— ott‘ V ' K. Agn‘“ Satish Judge /