HIGH COITRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETJTIQNER RESPONDENTS WntPetition(S)No.4»)of2CK 8 Gasiesh Raiii Dewangan S/o Late Shri Bansliilal Dewangan, aged about 49 years, occupation-Sub Engmeer, Water Resources Siib Division No.2, Rajnandgaon, resident of 112, Poonam Colony, Rajnaiidgaon (CG). ^7ERSUS 1. The State ofChliattisgarli, tlirough the Secretary, Water Resoiirces Department.. Mantralaya at DK8 Bhawaii^ Raipur (CG). 2. Engmeer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawaii, Civil Liiies, Raipur (CG). 3. Chief Engineer^ Water Resources Department, Mahaiiadi Godawari Kadiliar, Raipur (CG). 4. Executive Engineer, Water Resourees Departmenty Rajnandgaon (CG), 5. Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub Division No. 2, R.ajiiandgaon (CG) (WRTI PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTEmTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Ue Mr. Satish K. Agmhofn, J.) ft'eseiit : Sim S.K. Thomas, Advocate for tlie petitioner. Shri U.N.S. Deo^ Govemment Advocate for the StMe/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 22nd ofJaiiuar^7,2008) 1. Leamed coimsel appearing for the petitioner subniits that the Sub Engineers workiiig in Water Resources Department are traiisferred by order dated 18.06.2007, 06.07.2007 and 07.07.2007. Thereafter, amended order dated 31.08.2007 was issued. Tlie name ofthe petitioner foimd a place iii the amended order. The petitioner impugiis this order on the ground that the petitioner caimot be traiisferred by amended order. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioiier farther complains that the origmal place ofpostmg has not been indicated m the amended mipugiied traiisfer order dated 31.08.2007, thus this order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. sahu 3. On hearing leamed comisel for the petitioiier and pemsal ofthe pleadiiigs and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the petitioner has been traiisferred from his origmal place ofposting to the office ofthe Executiye Engiiieer/Water Resources Division Dantewada. 4. It is well settled that the transfer order can be mterfered only iii case ofiack of competence of the officer passmg the order of traiisfer, violation of statutory provisioiis and proved malafide. The scope of interference in the tmiisfer matter ofaii employee is limited. 5. Leanied counsel flsrther submits that by not mdicating the place ofposting, conflisioii has been created, as there are two G.R. Dewangan as per seniority list at serial Nos. 482 and 1425 (Aimexiire P/7). 6. The dispute, with regard to not mdicatmg the place of posting of the employees, who have been transferred, camiot be resolved by this Court. The State Govenmient is directed to clear the confiisioii, 3s early as possible, preferably within a period oftliree weeks from the date ofreceipt ofacopy ofthis order. 7. In view of the foregoing since the petition lacks materials warrantmg mterference in the impu^ied transfer order. 8« Thus, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge