!T! PEIi 'RiT PET1TION (S) No. 5879 of 2001 Ram Kumar Rathore S/o Shrl R.P.Rathore, Aged about 51 years, R/o Bharati Nagar, iSaspurfC.G.) : i. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Panchayat & Rurai Deveiopment Department, DKS Bha^an, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Additlonai Secretary (G.G.) Government of Deveiopment Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Choteiai Dahire Sub Engineer Janoad DERART!CLE 2260FTHE CONSTITUT'ON OF iNDi.A rt: Shri Vinoci Deshmukh, Advocate for the RStttioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Pane! LawyerTorthsState/respondents i Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate forthe respondent No. 3. [Passed on 20'h day of March, 2009) i. The grievance of the petitloner in this petition is that the petitioner 'anchayat Pathariya, DlsSrict Biiaspur to Janpad Panchayat Fingeshv/ar (Rajim); District Raipur. Ths petitioner was relieved on to ioin at Janpad order dated 27.' Panchayat Pathariya. Ths order is vttiated on account of the fect that immediately after joining the office at Pathariya on 10.10.2008, the petitioner was transferred. Learned counsei submits that the petitioner wanted to join the new piace of posting pursuant to the order dated 27.6.2008, however, on account of the Tact that the petitioner vias not relieved in time, the petitioner couid Notjoining at the .Q u^ 2. Shri Singh, learned counse! appearing for the respondent No. 3 >asis of order dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure R/3-1) as one Shri T.P.Patei, Sub Engineer/Assistant Engi'neer was looking after the ^ rt Patharlya before relleving the petitioner. State/respondents' 1 and 2 adopts the. a'rguments advanced •V learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. In additlon, she submiti :hat .*t* ths Detitionsr could not be reiieved on account of certain problems. After having come to know that the respondent No. 3 has ii©3( the c st Pathariya, a new Seshwar (Rajlm) ifriftt 'tii furthsr submits that there is no mate ffde or ili will againsf: ths ititioner. The ordsr is passed strictly in pub!ie Interest keeplng in vlew administrative exigency. She further submits that though the order passed on 01.09.2008, but the respondent No. 3 joinsd on 1.3.10.2008 (Annexure R/3-3). 4. Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that transfer is an Incident of serviee. The Supreme Court, in catena of decisions has hald Shat an empioyee has no iegal right to be posted at any one particuiar piace of his choice. (See State of U.P. and another Vs. iMi^ »II ^) ^ Sfya Ram and anoVier1 and Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of Sndia ani 5. in Gautam Prasat at an incidence of servlce and it is for the empioyer t< where a particuiar offiGer/employee b< in view public interest as jurisdicfion to interterence in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy mths cases of proved ma!< order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and reguistions....." ?-r in •t ; iiI SVs iurt has held that iegai positlon in ease of transfer is we!i established :hat '^ only in icer passing ie to the emp! The petitloner has failed to prove any mste flde, !ack of competence of the offlcer passing the order, or infraction of any 'a" view of the foregolng and appiying the wei! settied principies of to the facts of the cass, this •-** "Sd/-l: . SatishK.lAgnihotri Judge ^