^•^•'lv- t^\^7 IN THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P.S. No. /2B11 PETITIONER R.R.Lehrey S/o Umarrao Lehrey Aged about 58 yrs Executive Officer Zila Antyavasai SahkariVikas Samiti Ltd. Durg R/o Padmnabhpuram Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS Y<5^^•^^ «^p' »•' ,,..s?-- °<<-...-^\v ...&•••" ^^ ^\ : 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through- Its Secretary, Department ofS.T.S.C., O.B.C., Minority, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Sahkari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam Ltd. B-9, Sector 5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur(C.G.) / 3. Collector Durg Collectorate Durg DistrictDurg (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN^UNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND OTHERSUITABLE_WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS. HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETmON (S) No. 1118 of201 1 R.R.Lehrey. RESPONDEOT'S VERSU8 State of'Chhattisgarh & Others. WRir PET1TION UNDER AR'I'ICLE 226 OF THE CONSTnU'nON OF moiA SBLHon'Me Shri Satisto K. Agmtaotri. J, Present: Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1&3. OBDERCQRAD rpiassed oa 28" day of Febniary, 2011) 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent autliorities to consider and decide his representation dated 05.02.2011 and farther, to quash the order dated 22.12.2010 (Annexure P/5) issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner, Executive QfBcer, District Society, Durg, has been transferredto District Dhamtari. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that after joimng at Durg District on 19.7.2010, pursuant to the order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure f 12). Thereafter, witfain a short span oftune, the petitioner has again been transferred and posted at Dhamtari vide order dated 22.12.2010 (Annexure P/5). Shri Choubey further submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed wjth an ufterior motive and is against the policy ofthe State. Shri Choubey next contends that the action of the respondetrt axrthorities are malafide, arbitrary and abuse ofpower. » » "^- :!iiM iia-^*1 ..i$l Si^" 3. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4. On perosal of the order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure P/3) it is evident that the petitioner, while posted at Dhamtari, was havine the additional charge of District Dure, and by the said order, he was posted at Durg and was given tfae additional charge of District Dhamtari. Thereafter, by order dated 22.12.2010, Ifae order dated 15.7.2010 on account of administrative exigency vcas amended, and the petitioner was again posted at Dhamtari, the charge of which he was already holding additionally. Thus, in tfae aforesaid facts and circumstances, the transfer and posting ofthe petitioner from Dfaamtari to Durg and vice versa, does not come within the purview offrequent transfer. 5. It is well-settied that transter is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular otBcer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has lunited jurisdiction to intertere with the transter matter except in the cases of proved mala flde, non- competence of authority passing the transter order and not being in confoiTnity wilh the rules and regulaticuis. 6. The petitioner has failed to establish and prove his contentions, except makmg seltsame statement. The petitioner/eniployee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view ofpublic interest and administrative (S> exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamilNadtt and another^, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anothe^, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and others and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. & Others). 7. The Supreme Court, 'mAirportsAuthority oflndia v. RweevRatan Pandey & Others , held that "In a matter of traasfer of a govemment employee, scope ofjudicial review is limited andthe High Court would not mterfere with an order oftransfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. 'This is so because fhe courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter oftransfer". 8. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any pemussible legaJ grounds as afbrestated, warrantmg interference. 9. For the reasons as atbrestated- the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. a/- SatishK.Agi Judge 'AlTut s 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (2004) 4 SCC 245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 "(2007)8800150 5 (2009) 8 SCC 337