Singl^ Bencls •}»-.•• C^ \ ^D^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.48CO /2Q06 PETITIONER ^. .* -; r^f.*' - /^y / -^^y / ^sa/ -•••'^'•""^.'' i* /•^?'/ ^' A.V ^••^ ^- ^' ^•* •^ Smt. Nivedita Mukherjee w/o Shri^ Tapas Mukherjee, aged about 42 years, working as an Assistant Professor, at Dr. Khub Chand Baghel Government College, Bhilai- 3, Bhilai, R/o. 8/4 Radhika Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT 1. State ofChhattisgarh,. Through- the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS, ORDER/ORDERS. OR/AND DIRECTION / DIRECTIONSJN THE NATUREOF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI, OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE NATURE. HE6H COJRT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Mon'ble Mr. JusticeSatish K. Agnihotri. W. P. No. 4800 of 2006 Petitioner Smt. Nivedita Mukherjee Versus Respondent State of Chhattisgarh Shri M.P.5. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, 6ovt. Advocate for the State. Si ORDER >th ^ (8Th September, 2006) 1. The petitioner was working as Assistunt Professor in Sociology Department in br. Khub Chand Baghel, ©ovt.College Bhilai-3.By impugned order dated 30.6.2006 (Annexure P-1). ^Che petitioner vuas transferred to t)r. Devi Prasad Chaube, 6ovt. Cotlege, Sandai, District Rajnandgaon (C.6.). The petitioner has impu9ned this order in Writ Petition No. 3322/2006 filed earlier before this Court, after hearing learned counset for the petitioner granted liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondent/authorities within 10 days from th®date of the order i.e. 07.07.2006. 2. While passing the order dated 7.7.2006 this Court did not express any opinion on the merit of the case. However, it •"S?"fil St. .* •s:':; appears that having examined the case on merit, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the respondent-authority. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same issue again in this petition. The representation was considered dnd the same vuas rejected vide order dated 25.8.2006. 3. After having heard learned counsel for the parties emd having perused the records, it is evident that the impugned order is passed by the Competent Officer in accordance with law, in administrative exigency and in the interest of public. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of 18 years the petitioner hos served for more than 14 years in the rural/tribal areas, the petitioner hcxs hardly 4 years to retire and the petitioner has two school going chitdren, aannot be accepted on simple ground that no law/instruction/policy decision provides that if a person has served for long period in tribat area, the employee should necessarity be transferred to urban area. Other grounds of having 4 years of service and two school going children are also not aistainabte. 4. It is wetl settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particutar officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the trcmsfer matterancl. this Court coui interfere onty in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Subhash -3-:;