fy IN THE HIG^ ICOUR'r 'OF >JUDICATURE . CHHAt'TISOARH AS!©ILASPUR PETITIONER w.^^Q._ ^£>a-^ /200;3 .G^R,: Man<fi.ale : ;':'.;.:.|;,y'i' : ,./ •' :- S/o Late; J Bu gloo Ram! Mandale^ Aged aboufc 41 yearsr OccupationsG^vteSex'vant (^saistant Veterinary Pield Officer)-.; : • 1 R/o;Jang^.l fara^ Mard No.2^, PO Nagar;i|, DistriotsBhamtari^CS^ VERSUS RESPQNDEN.TS ^^^-•" ?^^) Statee-jofi Chhat^ Tbrc^igh the Secretary, ,;:fi^gricu 1fu r e.'.: (<?Ni:ma;l' Hu;sband.ry) •Department^: .DKS' Bhawan^ Rai-pu r^ . 2>..-The'U.nder:: SeGr.et©.ry^.- Agricu 1ture (Anima1 Hu sbandry) Department, DKS Bhawan^Raipur, 3) Shri Babuial Khare^ Assistant Veterinary Field ^fficer^ . .': -•••-•" :• / Veterinary Cltnic .Bansaguda^ Tehsil BiJaFur^DistteDantewada 4) The Di1rector^ Veterinary Health Servic^s, Raipur, District Raipur'" (CG) • WRIT___jPE;TITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF I N D I. A TT ••'Mi".: ,^, 1"'!^" ife.'^-(,."<^»^l HIGHl GOURTOFCHHATriSGARHAT Writ Petition No. 2624 of 2003 BILASPUR Petitioner: G. R. Mandale Versus Respondents: State ofQhhattis^ili & Sin^e B^nch: Hon^le Mr. Justice SatisU K. Affiihotrl. j Miss Sunita Jam, Advocate for fhe petitionelr. Shri Paiikaj Shriyastava, Panel lawyer jfor fhe Respondents No. 1, 28aa.d4. . . 1 . , . . _ • •, ,!. . . .• '. None for respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (8th Febmaiy, 2006) The folkwiag onler offhe Court was passed by Satish K. A^iihotrl, J. I 1. The petrtiQrier was workiag on fhe post of Assistarit Vetermaiy Field Officer in. fhe Aniinal Hiisbaadiy Unit, Nagari, District- Dhamtari. Vide impugned order dated 7.8.2003 (Annexure P/1) fhe petitioner was traasferred ta Vetermaiy Cliaic, Baasaguda, Disfnct- Dhaiatad. The petitioner has chaUlenged fhe transfer order on fhe grqund fhat fhe present traasfer order was passed to accoiainodate the Respondent No.3, who was ti^nsferred to Animal Hiisbandry Unit, Nagri, on his own expenses. 2. Learaed counsel for the rcspondents No. 1, 2 aad 4 fairly concedes fh.at fhe Respondent No.3 had inade an applicatton to fhe State Goverament for accomniodatmg him at some place because he was under serious fhrcat of his life by naxalltes. Th^re is no dispute tibiat the petitioner was traasferred to new place of postmg IEI order to accoxamodate fhe Respondent No.3, but rt does not aiiionnt to niala&de exercise ofpowers. Ifan employee is '-33 ¥. ^:.t r: ^ traasferred to a place on account of | consideratton of his reprcsentation, Uke; ffareat to his Ufe, heattti problem, ^di^ation pfchildren|ete. sotae otitier of5cer/e33:iplpyee has to be ts^ to accommaiate fhat person. It does not amount to mslafide exercise oflpoiwers. Be fhat as it niay, fhis Court by iateriai order dated 2.9,?003 stayed fhe impugned order and fhe petitioner •!1 '. .' . . • • ' •' . ' ' . , contlnued to reitiaia posted at the oM plac^/ The petitioner^^^^h^ been graated JGiial reUefbyuiterimorder.The petitioner cozild not continue at one place forever. 3. It is weU settled prmciple of law fhat transfer is aa mcident of seryice and it is for the einployer to decide os to where a particular bfficer/eiaployee be posted keeping in view pziblic interest as weU as administrative exigency. This Court has Umited jurisdiction to interiere ia fhe transfer matter and this Ctourt caa iaterfere only in fhe case ofproved inalafide, non-coinpetence of aufhority passing fhe traasfer order aad transfer order not being m confonnity with fh^ rules aiid regulations. In fhe facts and circiinistaiices ofthe case, it is not necessary to examiine vaUdity of the traixsfer order at fhis stage, In fhe facts of fhe case, fhe respondents are expected not to insist upon coxnpUaiice of fhe impugned transfer order. 4. This petition has becouie iafructtioiis wifh the passage of time. Accorduigly fhe petition is disniissed as having become mfhictiious. Hcwever, rcspondents/aufhorities are at Uberty to pass appropriate order for posthig the petitioner ia fhe public mterest aiid admiaistrative exigency, in accordaiice wifh. law. No order SLQ io costs. ' Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge