L§lf07x F1 $§N§LE Sagas? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT — BILASPUR Writ Petition {S} No. } f5 9/6 of 2010 Petitioner Subhash Kar, Agcd — 52 years, S/o Shri Kartikeshwar Kar, Working as - Sahayak Aantarik Lekha Parikshan’Avam Kararopan Adhikari, at — Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, District — Mahasamund (C. G.), VERSUS Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through — Its Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantrala§7a D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur The Director, Panchayat avam Samaj Sewa, Chhattisgarh, H. Q. — D. K. S. Bhawan, Campus, Raipur. 3. The Collector, District — Mahasamund (C. G.). Sub — Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub — Division, Saraipali, District ~ Mahasamund (C. G.) 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, District — Mahasamund (C. G.) 6. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagbahara, District — Mahasamund (C. G.) ) 226 of the Constitution of Writ Petition under Article - India. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1326 OF 2010‘ PETITIONER Subhash Kar Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. resent :- Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this429th day of March, 2010) With the consent of Iearned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. ‘ 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 15-3-2010 (Annexure ‘— P/1) by which the petitioner has been posted in the ofnce of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by order dated 14-9-2009 the petitioner has been suspended on the ground that he has committed certain irregularities. However, after consideration of the representation of the petitioner by order dated 11—2—2010 the suspension order was revoked and the petitioner was posted at Janpad Panchayat Saraipali by order dated 17-2-2010. Thereafter, census work was assigned to the petitioner. Again by order dated 15—3-2010 (Annexure — P/1) the petitioner has been posted at Janpad Panchayat, Mahamund, in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The order has been passed with mala fide intention only to harass the petitioner. 4. i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The petitioner has failed to prove the ma/a fide and P ‘ Gowri Iack of competence of the officer passing the impugned transfer order. Thus, the transfer order is just and proper. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order Unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and reguiations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer 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 Tamil Nadu and another’, Shi/pi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar & anotherz, State of MP. and another v. SIS.Kourv and othersa, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others" Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). Applying 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. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the mtion stage itself. . Sdl- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI M 1 1974 (4) scc 3 2 3 (1991) Supp 2 scc 659 4 (1995) 3 scc‘27o 5 (2007) 8 scc 15o 6 (2007) 8 scc 212 , (2009) 8 scc 337 o tge?