f^ if^ g^fc {, SINRI cf- \^i IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON fS) N0. W^^ /2011 PETmONER Smt. Yashoda Mehar, aged about 51 years, wife of shri Dr. Ashok Kumar Mehar, presently working as "M.P.W. (Female)'7 at Govt. City Dispensary, Jut-Milt, Raigarh, Resident at Kelo Vihar, Raigarh, Tahsil and District- Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ^-s^- ^•^s^y-"" ^^^^...^•'••'•s' ^a A-"" ^ 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of General Administration, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^y/•^ms'f The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Coltector, District-Raigarh (C.G.) The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION ETC: ^ vi^ T ^ HIGH CQUR:! QF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION fS) No. 4836 of201.1 Smt. Yashoda Mehar. RESPONDENTS VERSUS The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSlTflJTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shii Satish K. Asnihotri. J. Prcsent: Shri Roop Naik, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Aiim Sao, GoveiTiinent Advocte forthe State/respoBdents. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 25m day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (.Ajmexure P/l), whereby, the petitioner, working as M.P.W. (Female) at City Dispensaty, Juteiiiill Raigarh, has been transfeired to Sub Health Centre, Bahirkela, Gharghoda, on administrative grounds. 2. Shii Naik- leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never made any request for transfer from her present place ofposting. He further submits that the husband ofthe pctitioner is also a government servant, working as Prmcipal at Kirodimal Govemment Ails & Science College, Raigarh and as per the policy of the State Govemment, as far.as possible, the husband and wife should be posted at one place. It is next contended fhat the petitioner has undergone an open heart surgery in the year 1992 at AIIMS, New Delhi. She is required frequent medica! treatment, thus, she could not have been transferred. 3. On the other hand, Shri Sao, leamed Govemment Advocate appearmg for the State/respondents submits that so far as the posting of the husband and wife at one place is concemed, if the petitioner- along\¥ith her husband makes a joint representation /€S^ %.. ''% €/ ^" Amit 6. ^ \-> raising their grievances, the sameshall be considered and decided in accordance with law and on its own merits. The petitioner has not challenged the impugiied transfer order on any other permissible legal gi'ound i.e. violation ofany statutoiy i-ules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order. It is well-settled that transfer is an mcidence ofservice and it is for the employer to decide aslo where a particular officer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public iiiterest as well as administrative oxigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to mterfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide, non- competence ofauthority passing the transfer order aiid not being in confomiity with the mlcs aiid regiilations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under tiie provisions of service mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and adiiiimsfrative exigency. (See EJ\Royappa v. State ofTamilNadzi and another^, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another2, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav ancl others3 andMohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others). In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge l(1974)43cc3 2 (2004)43cc 245 3 (1995)33cc 270 4^2007)8SCC150