c^ -1- ^o^^S-^f^ ^:^^'"' ;'-' S, :'''''':.f?v'?-i>- ^^s^" ^ ys°\ ..-•••• '^e&-"" 'BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ,W.P.(S) No. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Of2011 Sadh Ram Tandon, S/o Late Shri Latelram Tandon, Aged about 57 years, Revenue Inspector, Patan District Durg (C.G.) r^" VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Revenue Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector District Durg (C.G) 3. Deputy Collector, Land Record Office Durg (C.G) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APFROPRIATE WRIT. •-'".-^^ ^. ^ :!ifsss:^S'. S |1, '^3^^ s '^<€-^: ^te^C ,<^ \k: • PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 4604 OF 201 1 Sadh Ram Tandon Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 12th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner, working as Revenue Inspector at Revenue Inspector Cirele, Patan, has been transferred to Najul Department, Durg, on administrative grounds. 2. The main challenge of the petitioner in this petition is that the impugned transfer order has been passed by the Deputy Collector, wherein, he has no authority to pass the transfer order because as per the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011, the transfer orders have to be passed by Collector, alone. Except this ground, no other legally permissible grounds have been raised by the petitioner. 3. On perusal of the records, it appears that the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Collector for the Collector, that too, after approval from the minister-in-charge. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the same has not been passed by the Deputy Collector, but the Deputy Collector has signed the order for the Collector, as per direction of the Collector. Thus, there is no error or incompetence of the officer passing the order. There is no allegation of ma/a fide or breach of any statutory rules and regulations warranting interference by this Court. 5. 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, /^ ''^\ 1 p; ',' s ?r 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 another, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothei2, State of M.P. andanotherv. S.S.Kourv and others , Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). 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. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SATiSH K. ANGNIHOW , Judge _^ ashok