CA: 1m; 1N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . w.P.(S) No. 4158 /2009 (3.134 PETITIONER vSmt. Sheela Kurrey, Wd/o Late Anup Das Kurrey, aged about 147 years, Posted as Principal, Govt. Girl’s Higher Secondary School, Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERsoS r RESPONDENTS : 1. " State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) {gt 2. Director of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) K, ~4. Smt. Pushpa Toppo, Principal, <Govt. Higher Secondary school Aramsahi, Block—Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) A NM ,i ’ 7/ \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE N CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. , HfGH CGURT OF CHHA?TISG§§H : BELA$PUR WRIT PET!T§ON (SWQ. 61 63i2909 (Wrii Petm‘on ander Articie 226 of ihe C nstrtuuc; f“ “dig; $ing1e Sagigg '1“: Gemarai fm the Stale V‘gAL GRDPR {Pzgssec} an this 28m day of Ociober, 2§Q$) finany. With ihe consent of leamed couose§ f0? "che 3a. me ordex da eo‘ 01—10-2009 (2)' By ibis pei‘izix‘oo, the gofimmer g {£‘mnoxuro fgm nasaeo‘ .m 115$ :* “condent No 1 whereby Me petmoner who as working as Prmapal has been transferred from Govt Garis Higher Secondary Schoo Takhatpur to Govt High Schooi Pod: Béock Kofa wuhm me Dis’mm Bziespur. (3) The main chaiiemge of the peiitioner in ’this writ petition is that the petitioner was iransferred i0 a piace where another Pfincipal has aireedy working on the same post As a consequence theme. it is ew’dent thez two oersoos canno‘ be oosted at (me piaoe whtoh is contlaw to the mrcular dated 12 07-:006 (Anoexure Pia} Euriher ground o me oemoner 13 ma? oniy éo accommodate the resoondem No 4 m pece of we oerironer tne Impugneo ordo nee oeen passed dwmg me ban pence: Tnerefore the Impugned order a com dry to the ,oohcy of ine Stare Gevr and fhe same may oe quashed (4) J have heard reamed couneef for the oar‘iies, perused the pteaomge and the eocuments appended thereto The oetrtroner has not chailenoed the transfer order on the ground or‘ matatrde \Irotation of ruies and reguiatzone end lack o: comoetence of the ofcer who has passed the traneter oroer The W mH m PETiTiONE§ Smt. Sheela Kuwey RESPGNDENTS Versus §§ transfer orde¥ has been pas3ed by transferring the petiiioner within ihe same district from one schoel to another schoo§ and, as such, it canno’i be held as iHegai and irreguiar transfer. (5) it is wen-sewed that transfer is an §ncidence 0f sen/ice and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particuiar ofticerfempioyee be posted, keeping in View pubiic interest as weii as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved matafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the ruies and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one piace forever. Under the provisions of service ruies, empioyer has aii the powers to post an employee at a paiticular place in View of pubiic interest and administrative exigenoy. (See E, P. Royappa v. State of Tami} Nadu and another”, Union of india and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another2, State of till. P. and another v. S. S. Kourv and others3 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U. P. & othersA). (6) Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any permissibie legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference with the impugned transfer order. (T) Applying the weil settied principles of iaw and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed at the motion stage itseif. However, it is made clear that it no place is avaiia'ole for the petitioner to join as Principal, Govt. High Schooi, Podi, Block Kota, the State authorities may iook into the affair and pass appropriate order so that the petitioner can join at Govt. High Schooi, Podi, Block Kota. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i Umai’ie i 1974 (4) sco 3 Z (2004) 4 soc 245 -‘ (1 995) 3 soc 27o ‘ (2007) 8 SCC 150 A