c^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.^ /2011 PETITIONBR ^"-. -^^ .y^' RESPONDENTS / /^Sheikh Gulzar aged about 50 years , S/o Shri Sheikh Bahar, Occupation - Patwari, r/o P.H. No. 47,Tehsil - Janjgir,District- Janjgir- champa(C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhatfisgarh Through- Secretary, Departraent of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) '2. Collector, District - Janjgir- Champa(C.G.) ^- Manoj Ambast S/o Not known to petitioner Posted as patwari P.H. No. -4,Tehsil-Champa District-Janjgir-Champa 3. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION 1. 2. OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As stated above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As stated above in the cause title. B iCTK"!?=SKS?! H!GH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH : BtLASPUI ^?*<lt"Y" <?^ jrid" *^*-j "^* WRST PETIT PETIT!ONER RESPONDENT; Sheikh Gulzar State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India) imgie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. !-'resent :• •5, 3t, snn vsveK ,i p !/ '.1\. na, Acivocate ror ths petmoner. i, Panel Lav/yer for the Stats. !^,j nth I'pa-ssed on this 10°' riav nf Aimiist ?f!11 \ f •^i^.'-wt'vfvE -^^a li' ^i rj-ij E '-uf ^iuA^ ^i^Ei j-T'i:wi;ih.|iirf-uf^^ A«^~^ i i in inss peisnon is to me s-1), whereby the petitionsr working as Patoi'/ari has been transferred from Patwarl Halka No.47, Tahsii Janjgir to Patwari Haika No.4 Tahsil Champa, on admiriisfrative grounds. Shri Sharma. learnsd counsel aDDearina ror the Detitioner submits that the petitlonsr has been subjected to frequent transfers, as he has been transferred thrice within a short span of 2 % years and as ser the policy ofthe State Govt., the empSoyee who have compieted rnore than 2 % vears at one Dlace.. can be transferred. Shri Sharma further siibmits that onlv to accommodate the respondent No.3, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) has been passed with rnaiafide intentlon and in an illegal and arbitrarv manner. Heard iearned counsel for.the aDpearina for the oarties, perused the pleadings and.documents appended thereto. The conteniion with regard to frequent transfers is frivoious, as there is a reasonable gap beftwesn the periods of his vanous transfers. The othar ground of chailenge that the petitioner has not completed 2% years is not availabte to the petitioner, as there is no restriction either in the policy or otherwise that no transfer to any empioyee wlthout 2 % years at a particuiar place. There Is r:o other admisslbie legal jround.such as lack of competence ofthe officer, who has passed the transfer order and violailon of statuton/ ruies and regulations. !t is a trite Saw that transfer/jsostina is an Incidence of sen'ice. The Court shoutd not interfere with t'ne fransfer/DostinH ordsr unless there te rnaiice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the cass .pTFSats •'".-^ aik ./ ^ r. .,t: ii.f^ "!>..:.„„ 2 on hand, the petitioner has failed to estabiish any of the aforestated jrounds. The employee may be posted anyv/here at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Govemment to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/postlng of an empioyee. Thus, the impugnea order warrants no intert'erence. (Sse E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu asv! another'. Shilpi So.se (Mrs.) andot'ners v. State ofBiharS anothes2, State of M.P. and another v, S.S.Kourv and ofters , Moftd Masood Ahmad v. S!tate of U.P. & Others' Chief Commercial Oaif., tof-s and ffs v. Kaieey K ndey & OthersJ'i. iying the weii-settisd principles of iaw to the facts of the cass on hand and for the reasons mentioned herefnabove; friers is no merit in the. Accordingiy, the wi-'rt petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. ashoK ^tisb fc Agaihotn Judge ;1974(4)SCC3 *(19S1)Supp2SCC659 sf19S513SCC270 4f2007)8SCC150 ° (2007)88cc 212 " (2Q09) 8 SCC 337 ^iSS^^^^. ^^^s^B^i