BEFORE HN‘BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P.(S) No. qggv ’ /2009 PETITIONER about RE/jésh Bagh S/o Hira Bagh,‘Aged 48 years, Agricultural Development Officer, Rajandgaon R/o Gauri Nagar, District — Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS / RESPONDENTS 1. ‘State of Chhattisgarh, Through: - Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) we“ 2) Assistant Soil Conservation Officer Department, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. O r ~‘~z»~:':71 r Wyn: < ax” Haw» . , v 7 _=— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION is: N0. 5530 0f2009 Rajesh Bagh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Sm Satish K. Agnihotl'i. J. Presem: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smim Ghai, Pane} Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER {ORAL} (Passed on 24 day of September, 2009) I. Challenge in this petition is to the ordey dated 29m June, 2009 (Annexare P/I) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Rajnandgaon to Narayanpur, on administrative grounds. 2. Shri Majumdar, {earned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an empioyee posted in a scheduled area cannot be transferred to another scheduied area unless another employee is posted in that area to take charge, as per clause 2.1 of the transfer poiiey. Shri Majumdar further submits that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from lumber spine hacture and the petitioner has to look after his old ailing parents also. Thus, the impugned transfer order may be quashed and the petitioner may be allowed to continue at Rajnandgaon. 3. On query, asto whether the petitioner has been relieved from his present place of posting without there being any reliever, Shri Majumdar fairly submits that the petitioner has not been relieved as yet. 4. In view ofthat, the transfer order cannot be impugned on this account. It is well-settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is *w I 1' (2007) 8 3CC 150 2 9mg (m CG: .I 143‘ \7 i for the empbyer to decide asto where a particular oiiicer/employee be pogted, keeping in View pubhc interest as well as administrative exigency. This Comt has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. (See Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others} and 5. Mokd. Firoz Khan v. State 0fC.G, & Othersz). The petitioner Cannot claim it as a matter of right to remain at a particular place forever. It is for the Government to transfer and post van employee keeping in View the public interest and administrative exigency. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugieri transfer order on any as aforestated; and as such, no interference is permissible legal grounds as warranted. 6. For the reasons as aforementioned, the petition is dismissed. m . V‘ sm- V SatishK. Agnihatri it 7 Judge i,