IN THEHIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WFitPetition(S)No.SO^V/2011 (SB) ® ngl8 B®ttc'1 PETITIONER: J.R. Bhagat, S/o T.R. Bhagat, aged about 43years, Posted as Chief Executive Offieer, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli, Bilaspur, R/o Ganga Nagar, Sector-1, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^^y RESPONDENTS: -^,/- -""> ^Dmw^x 'y.,-' \ •".o \' o- State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralay, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Development Commissioner, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, Through: Chief Executive Offlcer, Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri R.S. Mehra, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat (At Present posted as Assistant Project Officer, Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham), through: Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) WRIT PETITIONUNDERARTICLE 2260FTHE CONSTITUTION OF 1NDIA JIAJ'WUS" ^/< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0,3657 QF_2QQ8 Petitioner J.R.Bhagat Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Petitioner WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2914 OF 2011 J.R.Bhagat Versus Respondents Staie of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocaie for the petifipners. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate forthe respondent No.4. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 21st day of June,2011) 1. Challenge in the above-stated petitions are to the order dated 30.06.2008 (Annexure P-6), whereby the petitioner was transferred from Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli, District Bilaspur to Project OfRcer, Ziia Panchayat, District Durg inW.P.(S) No.3657/2008 and order dated 20.05.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner was transferred as Chief Executive Officer, Pandariya, District Kabirdham, while working as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kota in W.P.(S) No.2914/2011. 2. This Court by order dated 22.07.2008 directed that "no coercive steps --' be taken, in regard to posting of the petitioner, till the next date of hearing". The same is continuing tiil date. In the meantime, the second impugnedorder dated 20.05.2011 was passed. ^' 3. The contention of the.petitioner in thesecond writ petitibn is that since this Court, in eariierwflt petitioni.e. W.P.(S) No.3657/2008directed not to take coerojve step$, the second transfer prder was illegal and bad in law and &ie same was contrary to the transfer policy also. 4. So far as thefirst writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No.3657/2008 is concemed, the same has become infructuous, as Uie second transfer order has been passed, which has been impugned in.the second writ petition. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during' .subsistsnce of the interim order to the effect that "no coereive steps be taken, in regard to posting of the petifioner, till the next date of hearing", the subsequenttransfer order'is bad in lawand iltegal, cannot be countenanced. By the order that no coereive steps be taken in the first petition, the State/respondents was not restrained from passing a fresh transfer prdef at ali. 6. The petitioner has not raised any otherground jn the second writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No.2914/2011. Thus, thesecond writ petiiion also fails. One more ground has been averred in the writ pfetition that the transfer was in complete violation of the transfer policy for the year 2011, is not enoygh to interfere with the transfer order, as it has not been detaiied asto how the impugned tranrfer order dated 20.05.201 1 was in viotation of the transfer policy. On this ground also, the second writ petiticin fails. 7. it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court shouid not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there - is malice, infringement of staiiitory rutes and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The empl6yee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it A-.J ^ 3 is for the Govemment 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 & anothe^, State of M.P. and anofter v. S.S.Kourv and ofters , Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others Chief Commercid Manager, Souift Central Railway, Secundeiabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Offiiers5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No order asto costs. • Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok