'5 C^u HON'BLES.B. IN THE HON^BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \^S3 12010 PETITIONER: WRITPETITION YS1 No. 'SmtSudesha Soni, W/o LtShri Gajanand Soni, Aged about 53 years, Post-L.H.V., R/o Kishan Rice Mill Road,Nayamunda Ward, Jagdalpur, DistrictBastar, C.G. ~ VERSUS 1. Stateof Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Departiment of Health & Family Welfare, Ministry, , D.K.S. Building, Raipur, C.G. 2. The Director, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ( ." ; , ^ ! ; ' • . 3. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. 4. The Civil Syrgeon& Chief Hospital Superintendent; Jagdalpur, Dlstrict Bastar,.C.G. t ! , '• 5; SmtMamta Bhatfacharya, Post- Lady HealthVisitor, R/o Nayapara, Jagdalpyr, District Bastar, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE GONSTITUTION OFINDIA "^——1-—>-/* l~rt—^.*-n ^-i •l^*y;t^^-i/< . in^n*-. RESPONDENTS }^A ^'/p^c ^/w^ ^(?v.-^y ^sy o'.-\\^y ••''tx^' /i '.••' yy-^y ^•" ^ HIGHCOURTORCHhlAWISGARUifilLASRUR WRITPETl"nQN(S)N0.1'7336F2010 PETIT10NER Smt.Sudesha Soni RESPONDENTS Versus '• . ..' , 1.'''1 • ' , State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WritPetitiQnunder^rticle226ofthe:CQnstitutiQnotlndia) : Single Bench<: Hon'bleShriSatiSh^ Present:- ShriAldk Dewangan.AdvoQateforthe-petitioiner. ShriM.P.S.Bhatia.Dy.Goyt.AclvocatefbrtheState. ORDER(OISAD . ? .: • :. ! (Passed6 fhis^§tha^'o1^pml,(2010)^^^^^ 1. By tttis petition, the'petiti&ner'challenges thelegality and validity of thebrderdated 18-3-2010 (Annexure-P/1)wherebythepetitioner has been transferred 'from Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur to Deogaon, BloCk DevelgpmeF Pgrasgaon,yagdalpyr: 2. Contentjon? W1:tt8K;leaEned^®(iBSgl?!for'th^ impugned;ti^nsferiiQcdenq&^tialii(:I^EBIptf}ititiQnS^w^ tothe Medical College.Maharani Hospital^JagaalpurS^ theehtire admihistrative bontrel ofefripIoyeesofMaBaramsMospital, JagdalRur y^ hahded over to the Directorate^^^^^^^^^ 'Edu&atioh, though Ihere is n6 prohibitioffifrorn transfe Medical College, Maharani Hospital or any Qther^CQllege O other placerihowever the impygn0d order is yitiated beeause the Same is passed treating t^ petitioner as surplys er^plQyee. Learned eQimsel furtlier submits tHat; the^^^ transferred froiTl the 'presertt pilac;e?of gcistirTg only to acGQmiTiodatg the'respondeht.No.5.':,'';;:;^:'.l:'^';l':^i:^' 3. It appears that the coritrc(lj^7eCTplQyees';(^^Ma^ Jagdalpurwas handed^6v6rai3ltM®Bi ctoFate;l^edi^l'Eelu 5. All the employees inlheMedical DeRai'trnentareljnder.thecontrol ofDireetor,MedicalEducation.Sub$equentlyithast)een decided to fill up the vaeancies lying in varjes medieal colleges/hospitals and in view ofthat the impugned order'was passed by the State Governmenton 18-3-2010. The conterition of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been declaredsurplus,thoughtherearesufficientvaeanciesavailable,is noticed to be rejected on a simple ground thatthere may be less vacancies and there may be more ^eaneie& in^^^^^M colleges/hospitals, it is for the Goverhment tp look into the publie interest as well as the emplQyees pf Medical colleges and .District Hospitals, not bfone hospital. If there is 9 vacancy in Maharani l-lospital,Jagdalpur,the^petitionercannbtClaim'postinginMaharani Hospital^ Jagdalpyr, forsver^v^ posts are available in other medicahGplleges and hospjtals. It appears to be clear case of public interest and administratjye exigency; While transferring the employees the seniorjty listcannot be considered, because the transfers are made for smooth functioning of the administration. The petifioner has failed to establish the ma/a Ticle, breach ofstatutory provisionsand lackofcompetenceoftheofficer passing the impugned transfer order. Thus, the transfer order is just and proper. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posfing is an incidence of service, The Court should hot interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regylations. In the case ori hand,the petitioner has failed to 6stablish any of the aforestated grourids. The employeemaybepostedahywhereattheinstancepfttteemployer •ii^j:^!^ •S.VfSffWWC^^^^ ^sSi': "saa®s Gowri in pyblie interest arid'aclrr|inistrativeexigeney,f:urther,itisforthe Govemment to post another persori if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting df an employee. Thus, the impugned orderwarrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu and anatlie^, Shilpi^Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State ofBihar & an6 er^ Sfete ofMR andano^rv. S.S.Kouw and offiery3, Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State df U.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundffrabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Qthers5 andAirpQrtsAuthonty^of India v. Rajeev Rafan Pandey&Qther^). Applyingthewell-setlledpririciRlesoflawtothefactsoftheeaseon hand arid forthe reasons mentiohed hereinabove; there is no merit 1 inthe.case. : ,:1 ' ',: : :' 1 ' •. ! .•'. ' '. 1 :" In the resylt, ffie writ petition is dismissed at the motion stageitself. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri _ Judge \'-:--,., TTiK 11974(4)SCC3 2(1S91)Supp2SCC659 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4(2007)8 SCC1SO 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337