Writ Petition (s; No. 7&3 /2009 Petitioner /Ku. Sandhya Soni, aged about: 36years, D/o Gaya Pd. Soni, R/o 27 Kholi, Old Patta Gown, Near Dr, Sinha Medicos, In the housa of Preeti Beauty Parlour, Bilaspur Versus Respondents W l. National Federation of the Blind through its General Secretary Plot NO. 21, Sector VI, M.B. Road, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi 17 2. The Principal Blind Girls School, 27 Kholi, Bilaspur The Principal Blind Girls School, Jammu, Ved Mandir, Ambfala, Jammu (J&K) Guman Ram Patel, General Secretary National Federation of the Blind Bilaspur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE aEx CONSTITUTION OF INDIAK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 7158 OF 2009 Petitioner Ku. Sandhya Soni Versus Respondents National Federation of the Blind & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 & 4. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 20‘ day of January, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 16/11/2009 (Annxure P/4) passed by the National Federation of the Blind, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Blind Girls School Bilaspur to National Federation of Blind Girls School, Jammu. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been sent out on account of the fact that the she has made certain complaint against the respondent No.4 and on the event Collector, Bilaspur has initiated enquiry. Thus, this is a case of mala fide transfer. 3. On the other hand, Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 & 4 submits that the National Federation of Blind runs two schools, one at Bilaspur and second at Jammu. All the employees posted therein on the post of teachers are visibly impaired having less than 40% visibility. The appointment of the petitioner clearly provides that the appointment of the petitioner was transferable and her services was to be utilized on any part of the country if need arise. Thus, the transfer order is legal and has been passed in administrative exigency. So far as other allegation of mala fide is concerned except complaint which is still pending consideration, nothing has been pointed out to establish mala fide against the respondent No.4. 4. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 5. , By the office memo dated 23/02/2007 (Annexure P/2) is appointment order ”‘5” of the petitioner which clearly provides at clause 5 of the terms and condition, is as under: 3 “5. Her services may be utilized in any’part of the country in need arised”. There is no dispute that the National Federation of Blind is engaging visually impaired employees as afore-stated. So far as the allegation of exploitation against the respondent No.4 is concerned, the same is pending consideration before the Collector, Bilaspur. There is no link to establish the fact that the order passed is mala fide, as the order has been passed by the General Secretary, National Federation of the Blind, not by the respondent No.4. Mere statement is not enough to establish malafide. Thus, the case of the ma/afide has not been made out. However, it is made clear that if an enquiry is pending consideration before the Collector, Bilaspur, observation shall not come into way of independent enquiry by the Collector, Bilaspur on the allegation. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an 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 administrative 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.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu ’and another1, Shi/pi Bose (Mrs) and others vi State of Biha'r & anotherZ, 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 /ndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Otherss). 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. . In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. 5a‘tiShKf Aggaaatrt dge ' it l r Sdl- m Arun .4“ 1M 1974 (4) scc 3 ‘2 (1991) Supp 2 scc 659 3 (1995) 3 scc 27o 4 (2007) 8 scc 15o 5 (2007) 9 scc 212 6 (2009) 8 scc ,337 it i