‘ gnaw amch ’ a? \ , . IN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ~ BILAsPUR(CG) ) 5 I WRIT PETITIoNnNo “\3}€$ /2oo9 /B.R. Nishad k S/o Shri Tokharam Nishad, [ ; W 3 \ Aged about 48 Years R/o 1 T Madhuban i Road, Dayalband, I Bilaspur, [C.G.) 1 PETITIOENER _ VERSUS / 1. , Stafe of Chléattisgarh Through the Secretary, ’ RESPONDéENTs ‘ General Admlnlstratmn Department D K S Bhawan Ralpur (C G) The Secretary, Revenue Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG) Additional Collector Bilaspur Shri S. K. Kashyap, S/o Not Known to the Petitioner Assistant Grade-III Collectorate, Bilaspur‘(C.G.) V ' ' PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THI CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS ’ AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND w a DIRECTIONS l? , accordance With law ‘V 4. After consrdering the representation of the petitioner the order dated , ’ 4‘“ August 2009 (Annexure Pit) has been passed by the I ft ~ State/respondents stating that the posting order was passed purely y _, 4 w ' on administrative ground and in accordance With the rules Thete is i no illegality or infirmity in the order. The'same Is gust, proper and g I ' ' y IV does not warrant any Interference of this Court ‘ 5. Be that as it may, It is well-settled principle of law that ‘1 ‘ ' ' I x transfer/posting of an employee is an incidence of servroe and it is for I i 7.97\7V’\\e?\a v I ‘ ' g 1 j _ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR i I WRIT PETITIONgS) NO 4763 OF 2009 ’ PETITIONER ‘ ’ BR N'shad g Versus RESPONDENTS i 1 ' State‘of Chh ‘ ttisgarh & Others ‘ (Wnt petition under Arbcle 226 of the Constitution of lndia) ‘ Smgle Bench Hon ble Shn Sakh K Agmhotn, J V Présent _:-' Shn Mateen Slddlque, counsel for the petitioner , _ ‘ ‘ L " Shn P K Bhadurl Panel Lawyer for the Staw ’ ‘ ‘ ' 1 § r ORE? £03m i (Passed on this 9 day cf September, 2009) ‘ ‘ ~ ‘ 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties k. 2 The petitioner, by thrs petmon, seeks quashrng of the order dated 6.8‘2009 (Annexure - P12) passed by the Addrtrona! CoHector, Brlasnur whereby the petitioner has been posted In the Protocol 7 ' : Section ‘ 2 the has filed a writ petmon belng W P (S) No 3906 j 3. Earlier the petitioner of 2009 which was drsmrssed by a coordinate Bench of thus Court as ’12 ’ " _ withdrawn by crder dated 28‘“ Juiy 2009 wrth a drrectron to the $tate authorities to consider the representatron of the pedtloner strictiy‘in 1 I the employer to decide as to where a particuiar officer/employee be posted, keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved male dds, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the ruies and regulations. (See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v; Damodér P!asad Pandey & Qthers‘). There is no challenge to the impugned prder on the ground of lack of ‘. competence of the authority in passing the order or breach of ‘ statutory provisions or maia fide. This is not a case where any permissible grounds as stated above has been raised. . Thus, this petition being devoid of merit is iiabie to be and is accordingiy dismissed at the motion stage iiseif Satish K. Aghihotri ‘x Judge Gowri Sd- / 1 (004) 12 29 2 scc 9 . { ‘ v i