c^F-^'y^ ^i'i'Vi^S C !BFnilas^ !^i^^Si.,E iB'CT?l»f2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S» NO.H^ l OF 2011 PETITIONER : Murari Mahto, S/o Shri S.R. Mahto, aged about 41 years, }•" ^i $h^~^ presently posted and working -^ ..•••['^''S>^-- , as Programmer, Government ..--•Gf^-f^ \'i.^'' Polytechnic, Korba, District Korba (CG). RESPONDENTS Versus 1~. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Technical Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2.~ Under Secretary, Department of Technical Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 3. Director, Technical Education, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). ^' 4. Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Korba, District Korba (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner, above named, most humbly and respectfully beg to submits as under: - Details ofthe petition: - 1 PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS .;--;^'!!':SK frt!^3e^^- •^'>•<* H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WR!T PETITION (Sl N0. 774 OF 2011 Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRiT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri N.N.Rov, Panel Lawverforthe State/ respondents. (Passed on thls 9In day of February, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to chailenge the legaiity and validity of the order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitloner has been transferred from Government Polytechnic, Korba, to Government Polytechnic, Jashpur. 2. The sole chalienge to the impugned order is that the same has been passed In complete non-application of mind because in Government Polytechnic, Jashpur, as no sanctioned post of Programmer is available, therefore, the petitioner cannot be posted in such an instltute, where the post is not available. 3. Further contention of the petitioner is that though the impugned order has been passed on 15.7.2010, but the respondents pressurized the petitioner to relieve the petitioner from the present piace of posting afte'r a period of about seven months. tn respect of the posting of the petitioner, the Principal of Government Polytechnic, Korba, requested the respondents authoritles not to relieve the petitioner from his present place of posting looking to the work and responsibiiities assigned to the petitioner. 4. There is no specific circumstance, which exist in favour of the petftioner warranting interference with the administrative function of the State Government by posting of an employee fr<?m one place to other. •1c? 2 5. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service, The Court shouid not jnterfere with the transfer/posting order untess there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has faiied to estabiish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the empioyer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, 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 Tami! Nadu and another, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothei^, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others3, Mohd. MssoQdAhmad v. Stats of U.P. & Othsrs Chisf Cofnmsrc'a! Msnagsr, South Csntra! Rsihvay, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Other/ and Airports Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others). 6, Appiying 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. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, the respondent authorities are directed to post the petitioner where the post of Programmer is available. gshok Satis^i;Ag^ow judse 1"1974(4)SCC3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995)38cc 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337