SINGLE aENcH‘ (D 06¢ ImZ/w NM IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (6.6) w.P.(S)No. 359A 0F2011 PETITIONER Smt. Asmotin Jain, aged about 38 Years, W/o Shri Shanker Ram Jain, working as Aganbadi Worker, Bade Para Arjuni‘ Kanker Distt. Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS / :1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of ,. Panchayat and sociai welfare, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Project Officer, integrated Chitd Development Project, Kanker, District North Easter Kanker (C.Gt) 3. Janpad Panchayat Kanker through its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kanker (C.G.) 4. Gram Pachayat Arjuni through its Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Arjuni, Kanker (C.G.) é H \ @ é .5‘ Smt. Anusuiya Mandavi, aged about 52 years, W/o Kriparam Mandavi, Caste Gond, R/o Village Arjuni, Janpad Panchayat Kanker District Kanker (C .G .) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE M 5 CONSTITUION OF INDIA i; qo __ RESPONDENTS . HIGH COURTOF‘CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ~ WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 3522 OF 2011 PETITIONER _ . Smt. Asmotin Jain, Versus W State of Chhattusgarh & Others (Wnt Petition under Amcle 226/227 of me Combtution of Indm) Single Bench Hon'ble Shn Satish K Agmhotn Present i- Shn D N Pralapau Advocate for the pdnhoner Shn Ajay Dwwedi, Dy Govt Advocate for the Stab ' f RD R O (Passed on this 04 day of July 201 1) 1. Heard learned counsel appeanng for the partres 2. r Challenge In this petmon rs to the order dated O3 06 2011 (Annexure PM), whereby, the petitioner has been directed to, work at Aqunr Ghhotepara, whereas the respondent No.5 has been direcbd to work at Arjuni Badepara Le. in place of the petitioner. 3. Shri Prajapatl, Ieamed counsel'appearlng for the petitioner submits that only to acoommodate the respondent No.5, the‘impugned‘order (Annexuro P-1) has been passed with malafide intention and in an illegal .and arbitrary manner. Shri Prajapti, further submits that there is no provision for transfer of an Anganbadi worker, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed. w, 4. The petitioner, was-appointed as Anganbadl worker byordendated 23.08.1997 (Annexure P-2), wherein, there was no condition that the petitioner will not be transferred to any other Anganbadi centre. Thus, the contention of Shri Prajapati, that there is no provision for transfer of an Anganbadl worker is rejected. If there is a provision men only the post is not hansferable but if there is no provision with regard‘to transfer, the general presumption is that thepost is transferable within the area, which falls within the jurisdiction of appointing authority. The petitioner was appointed 'by the Chief Executives O‘fticerLJanpad Panchayat -‘ Kanker on . a 23 08 1997 By the Impugned order the petitioner has been posted tom centye Badepara to Chhotepara which is just adjaoont to the earner place rather a pan of the same Village The allegahon of malafide is to be __ proved wuth cogent and strong reasons, which Is available in the Instant a 4 petition Thus, the order Is a simple transfer order on administrative exrgency, warrantmg no interference a it Is a trite law that transfer/posting Is an Incidence of servroe The Court should not Interfere wrth the transfer/posting order unless there ls malice, . tinfnngement of statutory rules and regulations In the case on hand the. .. k petitioner has failed to establish any of me aforestated grounds The ~ employee may be posted anywhere at the Instance of the employer In v ,public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it wis, for the i Govemment to post another person if any‘vacancy-arisesvon account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappe v. State, ofwTamil Nodugnd anomer‘. shi/pi Bose (Mrs) and others v. state or Biher e ammef,‘ state or MP, “and another v. s.s.Kourv end ottersiMohd. ,Masood Ahmad v. Stare of y up. e others? Chief ‘Commorcior Manager, South. Central; Raihvan v Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam a others“ and Airpons,.Autharity or India v. Rajeev Rater: Pendey & Others‘). 1 g ’ ln view of foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed at tho mdqionfstage n itself. Sd/é Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Mm I ashok 11974 (4) soc 3 . . 2 (1991) Supp 2 soc 659 ,h y (1995) 3 soc 27o e l 4 5 (2007) a soc 150 f (2007) a scc 212 (2009) a soc 337 f ‘