<p TN THB HON9BLB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUBZCATURB AT BILASPUR c W.P. f S) No. ^SL{\ /2011 PBTITTONBR: B>' ^••...-•;- ^ys ,.°^'< ..-•t\\ <? ^•y,-^ ^'..y ^ y RB8PONBBNT8: Dr. P. V. Jain S/o Shri Lt.P.C.Jain Aged about 56 years Occu.pation -Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Posted at. Govemment Ayuruedic Hospital Sanvataal District Bilaspur (C.G.) VBRSUS l^State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretar-y , Depart.ment of Health and Family Welfare Mantralaya, D.K.S, Bhawan, Ra.ipurfC. G.) 2- Chief Medical and Health Officer ,Bilaspur , District - Bilaspur ( C.G.) 3,District Ayurvedic Officer, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^./z^- r1 WRTT PBTTTION UNBSR ARTTCLE 226/2270F THB CONSTITUTZON OF INDIA PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURTOF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITiON (S) N0. 6541 OF 2011 Dr.P.V.Jain Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Ailicie 226/227 ofthe Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :• Ms. Deepali Pandey,.Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel La^jyerforthe State. ORDER (Passed on this 08th day of November, 2011) Learned counsej appearing for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner working as Ayun^edic Medlcal Officer at Government Ayurvedic Hospitai Sanvataai, District Biiaspur, has been transferred to Primary Health Centre Aadawai, District Bastar, on adminlstrative grounds. Aocording to the tearned counsel appearing for the petltioner, the petltioner is working as an Ayurvedic IVtedscal Officer and the said post is Class-il Officer, and as such, tne impugned order Is iiiegai, arbitrary, as the same has been passed during the banperiod, under the transfer poSicy dated 13.06.2011, no Ciass-J & Class-ii officers couid have been transferred. So far as contention of the iearned counse! for the petitioner that the petltloner, being a class il ofricer cannot be transferred, is concerned, the same is mispiaced as the impugned transfer order has been passed on 13.10.2011 and vide circular dated 08.08.2011, the transfer poiicy dated 13.06.2011 has been amended to the extent that in case of urgent matters, in coordination with the Chief Minister, class 1 and class I! officers may be transferrea8. On perusai of the impugned order, it is clear that there is approval 6f the Chief JVIJnister. The petitloner has not chaSlenged the innpugnea6 transfer order on any other permissibie legai ground i.e. maiafide, violation of any statutory ruies or reguiations or iack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order. it Js weii-settied that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the empioyer to decide asto where a partscular officer/emptoyee be posted, keeping in view puolic interest as well as adminsstrative exigency and for asking even for smali deviation, there should not be any interference with the administrative function o? the State Government. i ashok 2 5." It may, It is a trite iaw that transfer/postlng is an inddence of semce. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order uniess there is mallce, infringement of statutory rules and reguiations. in the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of tne aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer In pubiic interest and administratlve exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. Siate of Tamii Nadu and another, S!ii!pi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Blhar & anothe^, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Koun/ and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others4 Chtef Commercial Manager, South Central Rasiway, Secunderabad & Othersv. G. Ratnam &0thei^ and Airports Authonty of {ndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Otherse). 6. Applying the weli-settied principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned nereinabove; there is no merit in the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^'il ^1974(4)SCC3 2(1991)Supp2SCC659 3 (1995)38cc 270 4(2007)8SCC150 5(2QQ7)8SCC212 s (2009) 8 SCC 337