HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BiLASPUR Writ Petition (SlNo.3284 of2007 Petitioner Mahesh Prasad Verma, S/o. Late Manbodh Verma, aged about 44 ysars, posted as Sub Engirieer, Office of Sub Divisional Officer, Canai Construction, Sub Division No.3, Tlida, DistrictRaipur, CG. Respondents Versus 1) The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, DXS. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, CG. 2) The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Resen/oir Project Raipur, i^r> 01-i. 3) The Executive Engineer, Disnet Division TiSda, District Raipur, CG. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bie IVIr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counselfor the petitioner Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11th June, 2007) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Sub Engineer in the ofRce of Bhatapara Canai Construction.Sub Division No.3, Tiida, District Raipur. Vide order dated 24-5-2007 (Annexure P/2) petitioner has been transferred to Water Resourees Sub Division Saraipati under theOffice of Fne Executive Engineer Water Resources, Division Mahasamund, due to administrative reasons, 2) Learned counsel appearing forfhe petitioner furthersubmits that this transfer comes within the pun)iew of frequent transfers. The .--^- peiitioner was earlier transferred from Pairi High Dam Disnet Division No.3 Tilda, District Raipur to the office of Executive Engineer, Water Management Division Rudri, Dhamtari, , vide order dated 30-08-2003 and thereafter vide order dated 1-10-2003 he was transferred from the office of Executive Engineer, Water Management Rudri, Dhamtari to Water Management Sub Division No.5 Kanki Raipur. Vide order dated 1-9-2004, the petitioner was transferred from Kanki to Mahanadi, Water Project, Disnet Division No.3, Tilda. The impugned order was passed on 24-5-2007. The petitioner has not challenged the legaiity and validity of the orders passed earlier on any ground. 3) Leaned counsei appearing for the petitioner submit that the order is bad on account of the fact that the order is contrary to the policy as the same has been passed during ban period. The transfer poticy provides that even during ban period, the transfer of an employee can be made in public interest due to administrative exigency with co-ordination of office of the Chief IVIinister. 4) On perusai of the impugned order, it appears that the impugned order has been passed in co-ordination with the office oftheChief Minister. Thus, the ground of frequent transfers cannot be agitated at this stage. . . 5) It is weil settled principle of iaw that transfer isari incident of service and it is for the empioyer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view pubiic interest as weli as administrative exigeacy. This Court has limited jurisdiction tp interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passirig the transfer order and _J 18 KES1 -3 transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/empioyee cannot be permitted to remain atone piace, forever Court orders. 6) The petitioner has not made out any case for interference by this Court in the present transfer. 7) In view ofthe foregoing, there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed summarily. Raiu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge