•n vT' .f\ ^-y/^ ^fsV %.•>*. \ ' ^i?P- KS'''' P. S. N0. (£fS>3 /" «• .'y. ..••'' ,* (h...^ ^^^•<" ^y^ y,.-\\° ^ Shiv Narayan Chaubey S/o Shri B.L. -42 years, R.H.E.O. (Rural Horticulture Extension Officer) ;awan, R/i lage- Distt. if^ State of Chhattis Agriculture '\7 •i c Ldi y , .K.S. Bhavan, 2. Directoi of Hnrt Apartraent, 1st Floor , Psjachpedi Naka, */ 3. Deputy Director of Horticulture, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur. Collector, BUaspur, Distt. iilaspur ";^. ^ HIGH COIJRT OF CHHATTTSOARH A'l- BTT.ASPTJR PETmONER Vt?RrT PETmON (S) No. 6133 of2011 Sfaiv Naravan Chaubev. VT?RSUS •O'l. \-'rl WKTl' PETITION UNDER AR'HCLE 226 OF THE CONS-nTUllONOFJNDIA ,9'a Present: Shri Manoj K. Sinha, Advocate tbrthe petitioner. SIn'i Ai'ua Sao, Govcirmient Advocate for flie State/respoadeiits e of order dated /T5^s",~^,.J-„-» -S^?m .4.-,-^ ^-T^,"-4^.^,.." ^n"!i\ ^r&eissu •ja i s u<iy U-l i^^lUUs,;!, AUll^ Bv this oetition. the rietitioaer seeks Q 15.07.2010 I'Ann.exiire P/l') wherebv the oetitioner. workiae as Riiral Horticultiire Extension Officer. Patea.wan. Block Peadra. District. Bilaspur, has been transfen-ed to t.he ofiice of Assistani' Direct.or. Horticultore. Janieir-Chamoa. on administrative OTOiiads. The petitioner fiirther seeks miashing ofthe order dated 23.09.2011 (Annexitre P/2) whereby tlie petitioner has been relieved to joia bis new olace ofDost.iae. Leamed counsel appearaig for the petitioner submit-s that the net.itioner ma.de a reoresentation on 21.07.2010 fAimexiire P/3'i to the resoondent No. 1 to caacel the .immiened transfer order dated 15.07.2010 fAnnexiire P./1V Tfaereaftcr. the oetitioner challeHeed the imuuened traasfer order before this Court in W.P.f'S') No. 3980/2010. This Court. -nde order dated 02.08.2010. disposed of the matt.er grantins libertv to the oetitioaer to file a reoresentat.ion. Accordiaglv. the Detitioner made a reoresentMioa oa 07,08.2010 fAnneaire P/5). Again. a rcminder was submitted oa 27.06.2011 /Annexiire P/7's reauest.iae to caace! the transfer order ia resnert of the netitioner. But til! date. nothins faas been doae. Shri Sinha next. eontends that. after a oeriod of more than oae vear. now the respondent auttiorities have issued the order dated 23.09,2011 (Aanexiire P/2) and relieved Ihe petitioner to join at the new pla.ce ofpost.iae withoirt deci.ding his represeiitatians made in this regard. Tlw imouaned relievine order has been nassed with a mala fjde inteation ag the netitioner had ma.de a comnlaint a.eaiast, one Ramii ^3 tl4? Chatorvedi. the thea Garden Suoerintendent which was also found proved in an enquiry conducted by the Deputy Collector, Bilaspur which was forwarded bv the Collector. Bilasour to the resoondent No. l.on 05.09.2011 (Ajmexiire P/9V Oa the other hand. Shri Sao. ieamed Goveminent appeariag for the State/respondents submits that the impugned transfer order was oassed strictlv in accordance with law aad in admimstrat.ive exieencv. The alieeation of mala fide is vaeiie and baseless as aecordina to leamed counsel for the oetitioaer himself. the pet.itioner has remained at his present nlace of postiag for aimost. about one vear aad now. he •ha.s beea retieved onlv oa 23.09.2011. Heard leamed counsel aDoearine for the narties. oenised th.e pleadines and documeats appendedthereto. It is evident^ that the impugned transfer order was pa.ssed oa 15.07.2010 aad the effect has bwn eiven on .23.09.2011 after a oeriod of one vear. So far as decidins the reoresentatioB of the petitioner . is coneemed, Ihe eariier writ petition filed by the oetitioner was withdra.wn with libertv to file a renresentation to the resoondeat. authorities. There was no dn-ection bv this Court to decide the represeinatioa of the petitioner within a specified oeriod. Tfae oetitioner has fa.iled to ooiat out anv illeeaJitv or nfinnitv in relivme the oetitioner. which should have been done eariier. The alleeation ofma.lafide is.not supportsd bv anv mat.erial, exceot. the selfsame statement thus. the same ia not established. 6. It is well-settled that traasfer is an mcidenee of service and it is for the emnlover to deeide asto where a oart.icular officer/emnlovee be post.ed, keeping in view public interest as well a.s administrative exieencv. This Court. has limited iurisdiction to iiiterfere wit.h the -• transfer matt.er exeeot in the cases of oroved mala fide. noa- . competence ofauthoritv pa-ssms the transfer order and not. beine in confonnitv withthe ndes and reailations. The oetitioneT/emoiovee cannot be pennitted to rema.in at one place forever. Under the orovisions of service rules. emnlover has all the oowers to oost aa ^? 7. emolovee at a. oarticitlar olace in view of oublic interest and a.dmmistrative exigeacv. (See E.P.Rovapna v. .State. ofTcimjlNadv. ^ys/j ^'ys^f'^^y^ J J'ysi^'yf ryf Jyti'^in /7*?/^ 'Tt'yifV^s'y "?? J.m'^ny/f^'^'y^ T^£fhv~''yt^st\ ^f#vi vtf f^"^f i-^fi * ^/ rs'S^^n" ^/? ^.sfvS-i^i ^i/ f-vi- ^Sfi-^^'if i^'1 V» v ''vS-f £\^S >w»?*^f£-i^^^/v^f £^££1^? & another^, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.K-aurav csnd other/ nr?^ A.'fnk^ A,^/"f c'/^!^^ A^T^tfs/^ v ^.t-^st^ f^fJJ J-> ^f C}t^ffy«^\ In view of the above. tfae netition is devoid of merit and is Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge Annt w