@ @D $§ngm $gnch -IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.1>. (S) No. %?2# /2o11 K PETITIONER Dr. Manbharan Prasad Vishwakarma, S/o Shri Bhaiya WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TI-IE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ob (‘n‘V‘V‘i’ ’1‘ ‘ .«P years, Rajnandgaon, Gandhi Chowk, ...... ”g‘é‘” posted as Veterinary Assistant §§§;;y: 60f Surgeon (V.A.S.) at District wW“; Hospital, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. ,r'State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Animal Husbandry Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. “Wax Raipur (CrGJ 2. .Under Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, Veterinary Development Department, "Raipur (C.G.). 3. Director Veterinary Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.). HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7592 0f201 1 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE OCNSTITUTION OF m’lllé SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/respondents 0 R D E R (Passed on 14‘}; day ofDecember, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby, the petitioner, working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, at District Veterinary Hospital Rajnandgaom has been transferred to Veterinary Hospital, Chowki, on administrative grounds. 2. Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugied transfer order was an outcome of mala nde and arbitrary exercise of power. The impugied transfer order has been passed to accommodate Dr. Babita Das, who has already resigied hem her post. Since the petitioner had made certain complaints against the Director, Veterinary Health Services, thus, the impugned order has been passed to harass the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has not submitted any document in support of his allegation of mala fide, except the self-same statement, which is not sufficient to hold that there was a mala jide exercise of power. To establish mala nde, there should be strong cogent reasons. Thus, the allegation of malafz‘de is unfounded. 4. So far as allegation of accommodating the Dr. Babita Das is concerned, there is no merit in the case as in place of an employee who has been transferred, some other employee has to be posted on account of vacancy created by the transfer. Thus, even if, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned PETITIONER : Dr. Manbharan Prasad Vishwakarma. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. transfer order is an accommodation, that cannot be a ground for setting aside the transfer order. 5. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the oEmer, passing the impugwd order. 6. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer; matter except in the cases of proved mala nde, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu and anotheij, Union offndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anotherz, State ofMP. and another v. S.S.Kourav and otherf andMohd. MasaodAhmad v.‘State ofU.P. & Others"). 7. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHOTRI Judge l 2 r (1974) 4 sec 3 3 (2004) 4 scc 245 (1995) 3 sec 27o 4 (2007) 8 scc 150 “a