\ HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition {S} N0. 3273 (if2008 PETITIONER Petcr Xess, aged about 55 years, son of late Marshai Xéss, working as Head Clerk, in the o$ce of Divisional Forest Office, North Surguja R/o Vin. Indra Nagar, Post Offlce Nawapara Funderdihan' Distt. Surguja (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : of Forest, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Distt. Surguja (CG). . The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division North Surguja Distt. Surguja (CG). . KM. Pandey, age and S/o not known to the petitioner, working as Accountant in the oftice of Forest Circle, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri. J.) Present : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing iinally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is impugning the transfer order dated 10.06.2008 (Annexure P/l ), on the ground that the petitioner has been transferred in order to accommodate respondent No. 4. He further submits that the respondent No. 4 failed to join the promoted post, thereafter, the respondent was directed to post the respondent No. 4 on the place where the petitioner is posted and subsequently, the petitioner was transferred. 3. The'legal position in case of transfer is well settled that court should exercise its jurisdiction only in ease of proved malafide, non— competence of the officer passing the order or violation of rules and Shn' Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 7‘“ aay of Juiy, 2%8) . State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department . The Conservator of Forest, Forest Circle-Ambikapur, regulations, applicabie to the employees. The petitinner has not pointed out any pennissible ground except that the impugned order was passed to accommodate the mspondent No. 4. In case of tmnsfer of an raise plea ofmaiatide in the transfer. In the present petition, I do not found any ground requiring interference and malatide has not been proved. This petition is devoid of merit. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs, J’\\ Sd/~ Satish K. Agnihotn' Judge Sahu