^l :^ .37/; PETITIOBJE Versus 2. 4. R.K.Bisen, aged about 47 years, son of R.D.Bisen, S.D.0. Sub Division No.l, Water Resources Depai-tiaent, Rajnaadgaoa, R/o. Ii-rigation Colony, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Raiuanclgaori. (CG) The State of Chhattisgaj-h, tlirough- fhe Secretary, Departnieiit of Water Resoirrces, Dau Kalyaii Smgh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Joint Secretaiy, Departm.eri.t of Water Resources, Dau Kalyaii Siagh Bhawaa, Raipur (CG) The Engiaeer ia_ Chief, Deptt. of Water Resources, Office situated at Raipur (CG) 'TIie Chief Eiigineer, Malianadi Godavan Basiii, Water Resoiirces Departaient, Raipur (CG) SRR A5 fSSK.Ai (SB; Hon.V£.Mr. uaocn,u; Shri N.S.Dhuraj.idar, counsel for tiie oetitioner. Ms. Biau Sharma, Paael Lav.^-er for the State. 5^i^JiS,J (P-assed on this 4th day of Jaaaary 2008) Lea!~ned counsel appeariiig for the petitioner iiiipugns the order dated 6,7.2007 whereby fhe petitioaer R.K.Bisen, woridng as Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division No.l, Water Resoiirces DepartiQeat, Rajnaadgaon, was treuisfsn'ed to Durg on adiaiiiisti'ative grounds. Leanied coiuisel subsiits that the irapugned trsm.sfer order is bad-in-law 011 tavo grounds : Fh'stlv, as per transfer policy uaere should not be traiisfer of eiiiplovees m.0re fhaa 15% i.e. total strenpfh of tlie cadre. •••sa@^Bsa^at - a- Secondly, flie traasfer has been inade tvifhui a period offhree yea-rs. 2. Ms. Binu Sharuia, counsel appearillg for fhe State/respondents No. 1 to 4, submit fhat tlie petitioner nas challenged the transfer order which is on adiiiin.istrative grouad aiid flie traasfer is aii in.ciden.ee of service and it is for the einployer to decide as to where a particular officer/einploj'-ee be posted, keepiag tn view putolic iiiterest as well as a.diniiiistrative exigency. 3. Witb regard to first contention -fhat, by fhe iiapugned transfer order, inore thazi 15% eniployees, contrary to traiisfer poUcy have beeii traiisferred, leanied counsel appeariiig for the State subiiiits that fhe total strength of t]ie cadre is 786 aiid out of that 113 oiTicers have been traiisfeiTcd which is mucli less than 15%. 4. In regard to Uie second contention tliat, trsjisfer vdtliia three yesj-s is bad, has no basis. Thus, aU fhe contentious of the leamed counsel for the petitioiier deserye to be rejected. 5. It is well settled principle oflaw fhat transfer is aa iacident of service sjud it is for the eiuplo'v-er to decide as to where a particular ofScer/eniployee be posted, keepiiig iil view public iiiterest as weU as adniiilistratiye exigency. This Court has liraited jurisdiction to ititerfere in tae transfer inatter aiid fhis Court can interefere only in fhe case of proved laalafide, noii-conipetence of authority passing tiie ti'ansfer order aiid traiisfer order not bein.g in coiiformit)- with. tlie rules and regulatious. 6. Hovrever, leamed couasel for Uie petitioner subniits fhat the petitioner is in diSiculty and lie should be grajited 15 days time to coiaply with fhe order to which counsel for tiie State has no oDjection, 7. In view of the above, the petitioner raay be permitted to reBiaiii on tlie preseiit pl&ce ofpostiiig for 15 days frora today, TThe petition is accordingly, disposed of.- \E Sd/- SatishK-Agnihotn Judge •.^^^^—-