l^ 5 ^a^ ^-^ i^ i^S a. lyUAKH .* APPELLAN" D, :mioner RESPONOENTS: WritADgeai No.261 of 201 Dundiram Poayam, S/o H.R. Poayam, aged about 54 years, R/o Jawahar Nagsr Ward, Metguda Jagctaipur, iJistnci Bastar ('-'U) versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Fores? Department, DKS Bhswan, Raipur (CG) Under ' Secretarv, Forsst Department, Stat9 of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhawsn, Raipur (CG) Chief Conservator of Forest, /^i^(ln./^4-4-:-<i./".—,"'-a F5/->'-^'ss s" r%;/-.*^L.'','t' 3'5,~i;.-M -:- t;nnaiiisgam Kaipur, uisinci Kaipur f'^r^\ (t-.u! Conservetor of' Foi'est, 'Kanker, r<t;-,4-:^-s- iyr^y~ii.'^^ /y^^.'1 LJISIHCT !<BHK8r (U^) LJivJ3!Ori3 r~.- • ;^a*'. -rl '; - -u;. u %^ •:. '~^s S V il^i'l-w". i -, 1 \ •vA ; ; ^ -w ~^:—,»,-.-:^,4. ;_^..»..^.^..:.. >'/~i^'. L^]^1;.J I'-u-'l 3<?l^;;.i^^ \ 'ur''^ t: F? - r yhnvssT^v?^ - la~or£ant KsncfiF. c^OLIXH }"SOHQ5tu20P, j"Of5ST U;ViSiOH, syi^& o irl MsFiOi pQfsnlDS, counssi forths'aODsHsnt. 'ri U.N.S. Deo, Gow. Aavocate forthe State/resRondents No.1 to 5. Division Bench' Hon'bie Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'bMShr!_R.N^Ci2andcaJ<gr^J, JUDGMENT (10-8-2010) 1.'" Heard iearned counse! rorthe appellant'o" admission. 2. The appeliant was transferred from Amravati (Productlon) South Kondagaon and posted as Ranger Officer, Awapaill (Production), pss'?s^i ?r Pnrasd' P.ir^la ^/ir!<. tr?sncf^r nrripr dst^rl 1£^ .i! ]!v 9H1 H ^-/•^•(^i^ift/'ri! t ! <^ i ^?-b?i. ^u?'- • i»r!i? ¥]\ A^? ii;!K:i'ta?i<?i ••J'i •^•^fi •^ S<E s. S;-<yi • ^>/ T/^i i y , ^-•w' ; si Bt (Annexure-P/1) passed bv the Forest Deoartment of the State Government. The appeliant chalienged the above order on the ground that the impuaned order has not been passed on account of anv administrat've exigency, but the same has been simply passed to accommodate respondent No.6 at the present placa of the appei'ant. The above Detltion has been dismissed with an observation that resoondent No.6 is also a ranaer officer. He has been transferreo from Parikshtra Adhikari Kondagson Utpadg"; Dakshin Kondagaon to Parikshtra Adhlkari Amrawati Utpada", DaRshin Kondgaon and thus, he 'n.as not been brought from outsSde snd, therefore, there is no question of adjustment of respondent No.S on the piace of the appeiiant. For h!m it is just a locai shifting. Further considering that transfer is an incidence of service and no any individugl has any ciaim for posting at a particular piace and it is the prerogative ofthe emp'oyer to post any empioyea for proper functloning of the department, the DeTrtson nas &een aism'ssea. 3. Shri Mano] Paranjpe, iearned counsel appearing for the appeiiant, referr'ncj to his esriier promotion order dated 29-4-2010 arQued that the sppei'ant was postsd at his present place of posting and respondent No.6 gave him charge on 31SI May, 2010,'as hs was hoidlng the additional charae of Ranae Amravati (Production), however, iust to accommodats him the appel'ant b.as been transferred to a new p'ace "Awa"3||i ('production), BeejaDur and respondent No.6 has been oosted in nis Dtsce. sia •^ y^ ^ 4. From perusai of transfer order dated 15-7-2010, it is clear that apart from the appeliant, 68 othere have been transferred to different piaces bvthe Forest Deoartment ofthe State on administrative around. 5. Learned S'ngie Judge, considering that respondent No.6 was posied i" the same forest circle SQUth Kondagaon; has rejecteci the contention cf the appeilant that he has been transferred to accommodate rssRondent 6. The impugned order has been passed keeping in view the settied principles of scope of interference in transfer maiters in exereise of writ jurisdiction under Articie 226 of the Constltution of india and, therefore, ws do not find anv substance in this writ appeai and we dismiss the same sn limine. Sarve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge