7) ^ d^ \s^l IN THE HON'BLE HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION fSl N0.6^5S /2009 PETITIONER Chaitanya Prasad Patel S/o. Late Siyaram Patel, aged about: 53 years, Upper Division Teacher, Middle School, Rampur, District : Korba (C.G.). R/o. Village & Post : Temar, Tahsil : Sakti, District (C.G.). Janjgir-Champa VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 11 •'l(! W(f] *B 5fT3n?i!B State ' of Chhaftisgarh, Through : Secretary, Aadim Jati Tatha Anuchuchit Jati, Development Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Aadim Jati Tatha Anuchuchit Jati, Development Department Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.). / 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Department, Korba, District : Korba (C.G.). ^4. The Collector, (Aadivasi Vikas) Korba, DistrictKorba (C.G-). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . The petitioner named above, most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under: :^.; DETAILS OF THE PEnTION PARTIGULAR OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned above given in the cause title; PARTICULAR OF THE_R^SPONDENTS: IE)linnqsaa•'!W?B*gw«B n ^•"' '^l ;,s-l..fla HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)N0.6453/2009 PETITIONER RESPQ^NDENTS Chaitanya Prasad Patel Versus State (^Chhattlsgarh and otfiere (Writ Petifion underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of fndia) Sinale Bench: Hoh'bleShri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present:- Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsel for the petltioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORALORDER (Passedon this 09"' day ofNovember, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel forthe parties, the petttion is heard finally. (2) The petiUoner, who is working as Upper Division Teacher, filed eariier W.P.(S.)No.4129of2009questioninglegalityandvatidityofthetTansferorder dated 30-06-2009 whereby he was transferred from Middle School, Noundarha, Block Kartala, District Korta to Middle SchOOI, Saraswatipur, BlockPrem Nagar, DistrictSurguja. OnconSideration ofthecase andrequest of the learned counsel for the petitioner; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to make a representation on 07-08-2009. It was further directed to consider the representationof the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of ite receipt. The Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Department of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development considered the representationand by order dated 23-03-2009 came to the conclusion that the impugned order passed earlieron 30-06-2009, was due to administrative exigency not on account of malice.contraventionof rulesand regulations and there is no lack of competence ofttie officer concerned, who has passed the fransfer order. Accerdingly, the representation was rejected vicle order dated 23-09-2009 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner, by this pefition, has challenged the order dated 23-09-2009 (Annexure P/1) of rejection of his representation passed by the Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Departonent of Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes Development. (3) I have heard tearned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documente appended thereto and have also gone through the rejech'on Tumane -.2-- order dated 23-09-2009. The order passed by the Secretary is unexceptlonableas the grounds;availabteforttiepefitionerasa)orestated is not available in this case. tt was a transfer simplteitorand in public interest on account of administrative exigency. (4) tt is welt-setUed that transfer is an incidence of service and itis for the employerto decide asto where a particularofficer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to jnterferewith the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authorjty passing the transfer order and not being in confonnity with the mles and regulations. The petitioneir/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. l.1nder the provisions of serviee rules, emptoyer has all the powers to po^ an employee at a particular place in view of public interest andadministrative exigency. (See E. P. Royappay. State of Tamil Nadu and another, Unionof India and another v Janardlian Debanath & another2, State of M. P. and anotherv.S. S. Kourv andothers3andMohd. Masood Ahmadv. State ofU. P. &others4). (5) ApplyingthewellsetUedprinciplssoftawandfertheTeasonsmentiqned hereinabove.thepetitionisdismjssedatttiemotions'tageitself. i^K-^ 3udgP ^ i ' 1974 (4) SCC3 2(2004j4SCC245 3 (1995) 3 SCC270 4 (2007) 8SCC 150