C^ v^ IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION FS1 N0. Z/'2-fc^ /2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: / s<y7 •' ^ J~ ^•^-'^.^ //^ ^/<<-'/ A" \."" r\-" <'?' ^ '.*• ^' ..'<• ^' f/^ "^' Vs Smt. Anusuiya Mandavi, wife of Shri Kriparam Mandavi, Caste- 6ond, aged about S.2—years, resident of Village Arjuni- Badepara, Janpad Panchayat Kanker, Ciistrict Kanker (C6) 1. State of .Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat <& Social Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Project Officer, Integrated Child bevelopment Project, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker (C6). 3. Janpad Panchayat, Kanker through its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kanker. 4. firarn Panchayat Arjuni, through its Sarpanch, 6ram Panchayat Arjuni, Kanker. 5. Smt. Asmotin Jain, wife of, age and resident of is not known to the petitioner, presently working as Aanganbadi Worker, Gram Panchayat Arjuni. WRIT PETITION UN&ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ifci y. ^v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2267 OF 2011 Smt. Anusuiya Mandavi Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others •^ Post for pronouncement of orders on the (7 d'ay of October, 2011 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ws sai '•]*\ MIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2267 OF 2011 PETITIONER Smt. Anusuiya Mandavi Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticles 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri D.N.Prajapati, Advocate forthe respondent No.5. (Delivered on this 17^ day of October, 2011) 1. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 7 April, 2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Welfare Project, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker, whereunder, the petitioner, working as Anganbadi worker was directed to join the posting at Arjuni (Chhotepara). The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi worker and posted at Arjuni (Badepara) by order dated 31st July, 2009 (Annexure P-2). It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that immediately the petitioner joined the posting in village Arjuni (Badepara) as is evident from letter dated 10th August, 2009 (Annexure P-3) to the Project Officer. The petitioner was informed thereafter vide letter dated 15 December, 2009 by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Welfare Project, Kanker that the respondent No.5 was appointed as Anganbadi worker in the year 1996-97 and the petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi worker in 2008-09, thus, the respondent No.5 would continue in Anganbadi center at Arjuni No.1 and the ;«> :?ST-. petitioner join Anganbadi center at Arjuni No.2. They were again informed by subsequent letter dated 24 December, 2009 (Annexure P-6) that the respondent No.5 who was earlier appointed would continue in ArjuniNo.1 i.e. Badepara and the petitioner would join Arjuni No.2 i.e. Chhotepara. Thereafter, the order was passed finally directing the petitioner to join Arjuni Chhotepara. Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order directing the petitioner to join at Arjuni (Chhotepara) as Anganbadi worker is unjust and illegal, as she was appointed for Arjuni (Badepara), as is evident from the appointment order dated 31 July, 2009 (Annexure P-2). Thus, the same deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that the impugned order was passed, pursuant to the order dated 1 April, 2011 as is referred in the order dated 7 April, 2011. The petitioner had not challenged the initial order, whereby, the petitioner was directed to join at Arjuni (Chhotepara). Thus, challenge to the subsequent order is not maintainable. It was further submitted that the respondent No.5 was appointed as Anganbadi worker vide order dated 23 August, 1997 and was posted at Arjuni as at the relevant time, there was only one post sanctioned for Arjuni. In the year 2007-08 in village Arjuni, one more center Arjuni No.2 i.e. Chhotepara was sanctioned. Thus, the petitioner who was appointed subsequently was directed .to join at Arjuni No.2 Chhotepara. It is further submitted that Arjuni Badepara and Chhotepara are in the same village and since the respondent No.5 has been continuing as Anganbadi worker since 23 August, 1997, thus, the petitioner x:^ IE;i'F"-'" '•••.'^"SSiS^'V- < 7. being subsequent appointee was posted at Arjuni No.2 Chhotepara. There is no illegality in the order as both the places are situated under the one Gram Panchayat i.e. Arjuni. Shri Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 adopted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and submits that the respondent No.5 was the first appointee, thus, the petitioner was rightly directed to join at Arjuni No.2 Chhotepara. It was further contended that when by order dated 3 June, 2011, the respondent No.5 was directed to work at Arjuni Chhotepara, the respondent No.5 approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.3522/2011. This Court, after having considered merit of the case, dismissed the petition holding that Badepara and Chhotepara are adjacent to each other and the same are part of one village. Thus, there was nothing on merit warranting interference with the order dated 3 June, 2011 . It appears that in the instant petition, the impugned order was passed prior to passing of the order dated 3 June, 2011, whereby, the respondent No.5 was directed to work at Arjuni Chhotepara. This Court declined to interfere with the said order. Thus, in view of the subsequent order and further the posting of the petitioner from one place to another place within the same village in the background of above-stated facts, does not warrant interference. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is merits acceptance. .Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative 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. State of Tamil Nadu and another, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothei2, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others , Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others Chief Commercial ^ Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Otherse). 8. As an upshot, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agi Judge ashok 3 ' 1974(4)SCC3 ; (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337