^ HIGH COVRT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BaASPUR PETITIONER WMT PETITION (S) Ne. 1S05 ot2WT Ram Singh Mandavi S/o Lt. Shri M.R.Mandavi, aged about- 43 years, Range Forest pfficffl-, Balp^ Bazar, Raipur Forest Division, R/o. Forest Colony. VERSUS : 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Farest Dcpartnieitf, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District - 2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Raipur Forest Division, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Divisional Forest OfBeer, Kawardha Division, 4. R.K.Shori, Range Forest Sanctiiary. Kawardfaa Division, District 5. N.K.Shanna, East Raipur Division, District - Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETmQN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmjI'IQN OF WDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Aanihotri, J. Shri KashifShakeel. Advocate tbrthe petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govemmeut Advocate forlfae State/respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri An-ind Dubey, Advocate forfhe respondetit No. 5. (Passed on 14ttl day of Jaaiiary, 2008) The petitioaer, who was working as Forest Range Qfficer, Baloda Bazar, Forest Division Raipur, by the inipugned order dated 22.02.; (Annexure P/l) was transferred as Forest Range Officer, Bfaoramdev Sanctuary, Forest Division Kawardha. The petitioaer filed this petitian on 02.03.2007 challenging the validity of the impuened traasfer dated 22.02.2007. The petitioner sought to impugne fte erder oftramfer on several grounds, inter-alia, that the election has been notified in District Kawardha and the ehildren oftfae petitioner were pursing their studies at Batoda Bazar. The challenge offhe petitioner is not <m any ^ permissible ground i.e. strong malafide, non-oompetaice rfttie officer passing 1fae order or violation ofany rules and regulations. Having regard to the facts of ttie case that fhe petitioner was not pemritted to join at new place of posting in view of fhe declaratioa of this Court on 14.03.2007 g-anted status quo. Now. no grouncte survive questioning the validity offhe transfer ordsr. It is well-settled principle of law fhat traasfer is an mcident ol it is for tfae emplover to decide as to where a of&cer/emplovee be posted, keepine in view public interest as well as ^. ^ S. .< A ^/ adaiinistrative exigency. This Court has linutedjurisdictianto interf'ere in the transfer matter and fhis Court caa imerfere oaly in fhe c&ses of proved malafide, non-competence ofauthority passing the transfer order being in conformity wifh the m!es and regulations. There is ao this case. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has fited an application ft>r amendment on 03.01.2008 poiittmg out that, in the meantime, by the -th ted 16 Augjst, 2007, a new person has been posted at It is forlhe employer-authodties to see that all fhe officers are posted at proper place and the employees should not get salai aufhorities will take action anv work. iatelvto give posting to the petitioaer and pass In view ofthe foreeoing, tfais ranted eazlwr is discharged. No order. stands disposed of. Interim relief asto costs. Sd/- ^. Satish K.Agnihotri .. Jydge .;, „