(2-P ^ .27^ 0&- IN THE HON?BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W. P, (S) No. ^3>^ / 2009 PETITIONER : ^Set Kumar Lakra S/o ShriS.M. Lakra Aged about 42 years, Upper Division Teacher, Middle School Fatehpur, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1^-State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes Development Department, Mantrayalay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Collector (Tribal Development) Surguja, Ambikpur (C.G.) 3. Commissioner, Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes Development Deptt., Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA €> ^ HIGH COLTRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S} No. 5337 of2009 PETITIONER RESPO^TDENT8 Ajeet Kumar Lakra. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRFT PETITION LJNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SBUIonLble ShitSatish K. Afi?nihptn, J. Present: Shi'i Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Shi'i M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govesriment Advocate forthe State/ Respondents, ORDERCORAL) (Passed on 18th day of September, 2009) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31 August 2009 (Amiexiire P/l). passed by the Secretaiy to the Govermiient of Cliliattisgarh- 8C/ST Welfare Departmesit, whereby the representation (Aimexure P/7) of the petitioner to reconsider his order oftrasisfer from Middle School, Fatehpur, Block Anibikapur to Batauli, District Surguja, (Aimexure P/2) on the ground that liis children are studying in Fatehpur, District Surguja, has been rejected. The Secretary, after having considered all the aspects, came to the conclusion that the order was passed on administrative grounds and as such< there is sio iiTegularity in the transfer order. 2. Shi'i Singh, leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similarly situated facts and cii'cumstances- transfer of one Narendra Toppo has beeii modifled. 3. Be that as it may, if the authorities have considered similar case on humanitarian ground, it cannot be made a precedeiit to consider all the cases on humanitarian ground. In the present case, the entire challenge is not on other admissible groimds i.e. malaflde, violation ofprovisions oflaw or lack ofcompetence ofthe authority passing the order. 4. Shri Singh further contends that 210 place of posting has been assigned m the impugned transfer order and as such, there is no admiiiistrative exigency, Stoi Bhatia submits that in such cases, transfer is made only to the office of Block Education OfFicer. The respective Block Education Officers thereafter post a particular person within the block. Therefore, the impug!ied traiisfer order does not indicate a particular school or place of postmg. 5. Having heard leamed counsel for tlie parties, the contention of Shri Bhatia appears to be con'ect. Even otherwise, the transfer is witliin the district from one block to another block. Further, the admimstrative exigency is not to be seen by the Court until and unless it is proved beyond doubt that the exercise is done malafide or other extraneous reasons. The decision ofthe employer on administrative exigency is narmfly takea as fiiial aid axiclusive. Thus, no interference with the order impugned is warranted at this stage. 6. It is well-settled principle oflaw that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ollicer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to mterfere with the traiisfer matter and except in the cases of proved malaflde, sion-competeiice of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the mles aiid regiilatiosis. (See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Others1 SindMohd. FirozKhan v. State ofC.G. & Others2). 7. Thus, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge :(2004)123cc299 ' 2008 (2) CQLJ 143