ww IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAspUR w. P. (S) No.?G H 5/ OF 2010. PETITIONER /./ Smt. Devki Mourya, W/o. Shri Chandra Shekhar Mourya, aged about 43 years, Woman Health Worker, R/o. Block Colony Bakawand, District Bastar (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) / 2. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jagdalpur, Distt. District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE / CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.7645 OF 2010 PETITIONER Smt. Devki Mourya Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) * Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS W Present :- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyerfor the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 3m of January, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4-10-2010 (Annexure — P/1) whereby the earlier orders dated 16-9-2010 & 24-9—2010 were cancelled and the petitioner was directed to join the new place of posting. The petitioner was working as Woman Health Worker at Sub Health Center, Bakawand, District Bastar. By order dated 15-7-2010 (Annexure — P/2), the petitioner was transferred to Primary Health Centre, Mutanpal, Block Badekilepal, on administrative ground. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 15-7-2010 in a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation. Thereafter, the representation was filed. The order dated«»15~7'~2010 was cancelled by subsequent order dated 16-9—2010. Now by the impugned order dated 4-10—2010, the order dated 16-9-2010 canceling the earlier order dated 15-7-2010 has been cancelled and the original order dated 15-7-2010 has been revived. There is no specific circumstance, which exist in favour of the petitioner to interfere with the administrative function of the State Government by posting of an employee from one place to other. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting isan incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the \. transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administratiye exigency. Further, it is for the Government 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.R0yappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and anotherf, Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar & anothe/2, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others" Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Otherss). 4. Applying the well—settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. 5. ln the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. i , Sd/— ’ i Satish K. Agnihotri-c i Judge l 1 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 scc 659 3 (1995) 3 soc 27o " 4 5 (2007) s scc 15o 6 (2007) 8 scc 212 (2009) 8 soc 337