'iKfl 3, I'l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1309 of2008 R.R. Upadhyay, Aged 52 years, son of Sliri Gaiiesh Ram Upadhyay, posted as Panchayat & Samaj Shiksha Sangathak at Janpad Panchayat Gunderdehi, District Durg (CG). R'o Gunderdehi, District Durg (CG). YERSVS SSPONDENTS : l.State of CUiattisgarh through the Secretar}', Department of MaSiila Avam Bal Vikas & Soeial Wetfare, Manti-alaya, DKS Bhawaa, Raipur. 2. The Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Chhattisgarh, H.Q. Raipur. 3. The Deputy Director, Social Wetfare Department, District Durg (CG). (WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aauhotri. J.) Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt Smita Ghai, Pane! Lawyer for the State. QRAL ORDER (Passed osi 27°'day ofMarch, 2009) With the consent of'the parties, the matteris taken up for hearing fuially. 1. Bythis petition, the petitioner impugns the traiisfer order dated 23.11.2007 (Aimexure-P/1), by which the earlier transfer order dated 29.06.2007 (AimexTjre P/2) has beeii aniended aiid the petitioner has been transferred .from Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg to Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund, on adniinistrative ground. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for fiie petitioner submits fhat earlier the respondent aufhorities, by order dated 29.06.2007' (Aanexure P/2), transfen-ed the petitioner from Janpad Panchayat Gundardehi, Distt. Durg •"%;; .<.^<'l'!ss . to Janpad Panchayat Bagbahara, Distt, Maliasamund, showing on his own expenses, whereas the petitioner has never made any request for transfer. Thus, the subsequent transfer order dated 23.11.2007 by amendment as on administrative ground, is bad in law. 3. I have heard leamed courisel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and fhe documents appended thereto. T&e traiisfer order was passed on 29.06.2007, shQwing on his own expenses, against which a writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 5948/07 was preferred by fhe petitioner. This Court, after having considered, granted stay in favour ofthe petitioner. By subsequent ofderdafed 23.11.2007 (Annexure P/l) the, earlier traiisfer order dated 29.06.2007 (Annexure P/2) has been amended. The order dated 23.11.2007 does not sufier from aay irregularity, infirmity or malafide. 4. It is well settled pruiciple oflaw that fi-ansfer is an incidence ofservice aiid it is for the employei' to decide as to where a particular ofEcer/ employee may be posted, keepiag m view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limitedjurisdietionto interfei'e with the traiisfer matter and except in the cases of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and nol beiiig in conformity with the rules and reguiations. 5. The courts or tribunals, which are appellate authorities should refrain from considering the niceties oftlie administrative needs and requirements offhe situation concemed. (See State ofU.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal. i 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of-Mohd. Masood Alunad vs.| State ofU.P. and otliers^ summed up the scope ofinterference in exercisei '-(2004) I1SCC 402 2 (2007) 8 SCC 150 of its discretionaty jurisdiction uiider Article 226 ofthe Gonstitution of India, as under: 7. The scope of judicial review of transfei- under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndiahas been settled by Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy v. Union oflndia, National Hydroelectric Po-wer Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal. Following the aforesaid principles laid 'down by the Supreme Gourt,the AIlahabadHigh Courfin Vijay Pal Singh v. State ofU.P. and Onkar Nath Ti-wari v. Chief Engineer, Minor Irringation Deptt'. bas held fhat the prmciple oflawlaiddownmtheafpresaiddecisions is that an order of transfer is a part of fhe service conditions of aa employee which should not be intertered with ordmarily by a court of law in exercise of its disGretionaiyjurisdictionunder Article 226 unless the eourt finds that either fhe order is mala fide or fhat the service rules prohibit such ti-ansfer, 6r t^iat the aufliorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders." 7. In view ofthe foregoiiig, the writ petitioii is liable to be dismissed and is : hereby disinissed. ;. Coiisequently, pending applications, ifany, stand disposed of SaHu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge