“$v § > (D Si§§€§£§ WNW ; JIN THE HEGH CGaURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P.S. N§§Qé2011 PetitiGner @E. Veena Sahu Wife of Shri Roop Kumar Sahu, Aged 51 years Head Master “Block Prathmik Shaia Fingeshwars PO. Thana Fingeshwar, Tah.— Rajim, Dist—Raipur (Cu-G.) :Versus $5,. Resgondentg 1/.State of Chhattisgarh Thwugh The Secretary SchooE Education Department Ministry DK S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2(C0iiect0r Raipur Dist. Raipur (QGI) / 3. District Education Officer Raiipur Thrcugh the Cellectcr Raipur (CG) {Bieck Education Officer Fingeshwar Black Educaticn Officer Fingeshwar Elcck, Dist«Raipur (C.G.} Sf’Shri Ramu Ram Sahu aged. about 45 years S/o age-agukmmw Political Leader W / army W swam GWWW mm W circa? R/c Fingeshwar P.O.Thana lFingeshwar Taliii Rajim Dist-I Raipur (CG) (i your P’E’rrrroN rJNDER Alm‘rCLE 226/227 or THE V goSTITUTIor-J giggiwm i. Eartic‘Wrc W HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH : BILASPUR m WRIT PETITION (S) NO‘ 6806 OF 2011 PETITIONER Smt. Veena Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petiticn under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present :- Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao. Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 23E day of November, 201 1) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge legality and validity of the transfer order dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure P-1). whereby. the petitioner. working as Headmaster. has been transferred from Balak Government Primary School. Fingeshwar. Block Fingeshwar. tot Government Primary School. Basin. Block Fingeshwar. on administrative grounds. r 2. Learned counsel’appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promote to the post o eadmaste on- 1.06.200 an poste a Balak Government imary chool. irigeshwa is workin i he sai schoo with grea sincerit and onestly. The petitione ha been transferre by therimpugne orde date .0701 without ther being an dministrativ xigency. After receipt o th sairansfe order. th ptitione made representation befor th respnn authorities an requested for cancellatio h trste order. bu til d f Hr 69 d d t Pr S Fr. She g n t d l t y h r s d d r d 14.21. e y ae e f e dtr e er a e e odet d n of te anr t t dat o'actio as bee taken o th same. 3. Further contentio o the petitione is that in the ai schoo evera teachers are workinginc lst more than iv ear bu he h not been transferredwheras only the etitione ha beenransferre o accountf some wron ror umitted by th reponden agains the petitione. u. this petitin. e nn h n n e n f r sd t sl ’se a fe ys t ty ave fe. pr s vtd n vo g ept sb e st No.5 t r Ths o é? 4. Apad from the above, the} petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissibie legal ground Le. malafide. violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the offrcer. passing the impugned order. ; l 5. Law in this raped is well settled that, “if there is any complaint against an ofticial. the State Govemment is certainly within its jurisdiction to ‘ transfer such an employee". (See: Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. Stew-0L i u.P. s others’). 6. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of ‘ service. The Court should. notvinterfere with the transierlposting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In r e theoase on hand. the petitioner has tailed; to-establishany of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted ‘anwhereuatthe' instance-of the‘employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further. it is for the Government to post another person deny/vacancy ' arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus. the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P;Royappa ,V. State of Tami! Nada and anomerz, Shllpi Bose (Mrs) and others v.» State of Bihar & another’, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others“. Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State or UR a others5 ChierCommemraI Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others‘ and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey.& Others’). 7. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for thedreasons mentioned hereinabove; there is nomeritinw, . 03‘. / the case. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition. is dismissed. Sdl- Satish KAgnihotri ' ‘ Judge t ‘ ‘l (2007.) 8 scc 150 2 1974(4) soc 3 3 4 (199-1) Supp 2 soc 659 5 (1995) 3 soc 27o 6 ~(2007)‘8 soc .150 1 (2007)4arscc 212 (2009)‘8-soc 337 y