IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TIS ARH'AT EILA§EUR (CHHAlfEZSGARI—I] WRIT PETITIOMS) NaQéZ (2010. PE'I‘I'FIQNER: SITftSHanti Usandii, wife of Pradeep Usandi, aggd abaut 27 years, wdrking as Waxd Aaya, at Govt. Medical College, Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chha'msgarh V¢E3us 1, State: of‘Chhattisgarh, thraugh ’Secrétary, Health and Famiiy {Welfare Dapartm-ent, Dau Kalyan smgh Bhawan;.' Raipur, Chhattiégarh. 27 Director‘Medical Education, Rajpur Chhattis‘garh. V . ' 3. Director, Health Services, ‘ Sanchnal’aya, Raipur, 'Chhattisgarh. 4. Joint Director cum Superintendgnt, Govt. Medical COHege, Maharanl Hospital, Jagdalpui‘, C‘hhattisgarh. 5. Chief Medical and Hea1th 0mm, Jagdaipur,-Dish*ict Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Résgondents km, WRIT RETITION UNDER ARTIéLE /2g0}? THE CONSTxTUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ Petition under Atticle 226 of theConstitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 1st day of April, 2010) AFK 1. With the consent of learned 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 18—3-2010 (Annexure- P/1) by which the petitioner has been transferred from Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur to the office of Chief Medical Officer, Bijapur, against the vacancy available in the said office. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order is vitiated, as the petitioner was appointed to the Medical College, Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur and thereafter by order dated 24—2-2006 (Annexure- P/2) entire administrative control of employees of Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur was handed over to the Directorate, Medication Education, though there is .no prohibition from transferring from Medical College, Maharani Hospital or any other college or any other place, however the impugned order is vitiated because the same is passed treating the petitioner as surplus employee. \\ WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1384 OF 2010 PETITIONER Smt. Shanti Usandi Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8; Others \ / On careful consideration of the order dated 24-2-2006, it appears that the control of employees of Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur was handed over to the Directorate, Medical Education. Ali the employees in the Medical Department are under the control of Director, Medical Education. Subsequently by circular dated 27-1—2010 it has been decided to fill up the vacancies lying in varies medical colleges/hospitals and in view of that the impugned order was passed by the State Government on 18-3-2010. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been declared surplus, though there are sufficient vacancies available, is noticed to be rejected ona simple ground that there may be less vacancies and there may be more vacancies in Medical colleges/hospitals, it is for the Governmentto look into the public interest as well as the employees of Medical colleges and District Hospitals, not of one hospital. If there is a vacancy in Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, the petitioner cannot claim posting in Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, for ever when admittedly several posts are available in other medical colleges and hospitals. lt appears to be clear case of public interest and administrative exigency. The petitioner has failed to establish the mala fide, breach of statutory provisions and lack 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 regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner J\>\\ has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. ‘The / ’\ W/ * ”7 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 another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar & anotherz, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others3, 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 & Otherss). 7. Applying the well-settled principies of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereina_bove; there is no merit in the case. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. . a . “a Gowri/ Arun t sd/- SATISH K. AGNJHOTRI ' J“dgef’ 1 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 scc 659 3 (1995) 3 sce»2.7o 4 (2007) 8 scc 150 5 (2007) 8 scc 212 6 (2009) 8 scc 337