I WRIT PETITION ( S ) No. 7 [9 Of 2009 ETTIONER: / 9 b D W ome b D L IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLASPUR 7 PI Bajrang Prasad AgrawaIS/o Shri Ram Pratap Agrawal, aged about 4 years, Su ivisional Officer, Public orks Dpartnt, Su ivision , Raigarh (CG). T 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). . The Deputy Secretary Public Works Department , D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). /3. Shri Htam Sing Sikarwa, S/ Late Ramcharan Singh Sikarwar, aged about 57 years, Sub Divisional Office, Public Works epartment, Janakpur, District Korea (CG); WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Versus RESPONDENS: / , “2 o h r o r D Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for'the petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 85 2. Ms Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the respondent No.3. o R D E R (Oral) (Passed on this 15th day of December, 2009) Heard. 1. The petitioner has tiled this petition challenging the order dated 2.12.2009 (Annexure P/ 1), passed on the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed on the representation of the respondent No.3. 2. Indisputable, brief facts are that the petitioner was working on the post of AssistantEngineer (Civil) at Sub Division No.3, Division No.2, Public Works Department, Bilaspur. By order dated 27.6.2009 (Annexure P/4) the petitioner (Shri B. P. Agarwal) was transferred in the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh, Sub Division, Raigarh. By the same transfer order (Annexure' P/4) the respondent No.3 (Shri Hotam Singh Sikarwar), who was working as Assistant Engineer in the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh, Sub Division Raigarh, was also transferred to the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Janakpur, Sub Division Janakpur. . Being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 27.6.2009 the respondent No.3 filed W.P.(S) No. 3109/2009, which was disposed of. by order dated 3.7.2009. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 filed a representation before the concerned HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7197 of 2009 PETITIONER Béjrang Prasad Agrawal VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh 85 others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) authority, which was considered and decided by order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure P/2) and the respondent No.3 was again posted at Sub Division, Raigarh. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner tiled W.P.(S) No. 6055/2009, which was disposed of by order dated 23.10.2009 with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Public Works Department to consider the representation of the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 and pass appropriate orders in the public interest and administrative ekigencies, if any. 5. By the impugned order dated 2.12.2009 (Annexure P/l)‘the representation of the petitioner was decided by the concerned authority and while retaining the respondent No.3 at Sub Division, Raig'arh, the petitioner was posted at Sub Division, Kharsia. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.‘ 7. It is apparent that the concerned authority has considered all the aspects of the matter and has decided the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3. It is evident that by posting the petitioner at Sub Division, Kharasia, he has been adjusted within Raigarh district. The petitioner cannot insist for his posting to a particular place. 8. It is well—settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/ employee be posted, keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and Jr“ regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to ‘remain at one place foreVer. Under the provisions of service ‘1 H H 1 £9 ’ rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View of public interest and administrative l exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and anotherl, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anotherz, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another3, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others4 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others5). 9. The Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey 85 Others6, held that “In a matter of transfer of a government employee, scope ofjudicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of ‘ transfer.” 10. There is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds as afore—stated, warranting interference with the impugned order. 11. For the reasons as afore-stated, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. i ‘ r VSd/- WT' statish‘K, Agaihmra § Judge Thakur 1 1974 (4) scc 3 2 g991) supp 2 scc 659 23912004) 4 scc 245 4 (1995) 3 scc 27o ~ 5 (2007) 8 scc 150 6 (2009) 8 scc 337 I he W