COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPIJR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WBITPETITIONIS) No. 386 pf2008 R.S.8ahu a^d 58 years S/o Sfari G.R.Sahu, Posted at ; Sr. Treasury Qfficer, District TreasutylDiirg (C.G.) R/o Near Flour Mill, Model Town, Behind Nehru Nager, BIiilai, District Dm'g (C.G.) VERSUS"- : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Tln-ou^i: Chiet' Exeepetary, Fiuaiice Depatitiient, D.K.S.Bhavaii, iRaipur (C.G.) 2. The Upper Secretary, Finance and Planning Departti'ieiit, Maiitralaya, D.K.S. BIiavan, Raipia- (C.G.) 3. Collector, Disirict Durg, (C.G.) 4. Shri Ramkaran Shukla. Posted : District Treasurv, Raipur (C.G.) WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA SB: Hpn'ble Shn Satish K. Agmhptri, J. i'^^-.-SiTt^S? Shri B.K.aiakrabarty, Advocato lx>r the patitioner. s Shri Satish Gupta, Govemment Advoeate forflis State/ respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for tlie respondent No. 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 28s" day of February, 2008) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner sutouts that the petitioner, working as Senior Treasury Officer at Dwrg, has been transferred as Finance OfBcer, Oaribi Unmoolan Pariyojna- Raipur. The petitioner impugns the transfer order dated 11.01.2008 (AnnexureA/2) on the ground that there is a malafide intention on the part ofthe respondents. The order is based on conjecture and surmises. The petitionsr has been transferred within a period of one year and six montfas. Further, the service record of the petitioner is excellent and his ehildren are appearing in the board examination. Leamed counsel appearing tbr 1he Sg'S'.SisiS petitioner submits that this is a fit case wherein this Court may interf'ere and quash the order dated 11.01.2008. 2. Shri Gupta, leamed Govemment Advocate appearing for the State / respondents 1 to 3 suhmits fhat the children of fhe petitioner are studyine at Raipur aod the petitioner hag/been transferred from district Diu-g to Raipur. With reeard to Ihe allegations ofmalafide, the petitioner has not made out a case ofmalafide and not produced aay document except the selfsame statement in support ofthe aliegations. On all other grounds, this petitions is not maintainable. 3. It is well-setfled principle oflawthattransfer is an incidence ofservice and tt is for the employer to decide as to where a particuiar offieer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdietion to irrterfere in tiie transfer matter and except in the cases of proved malafide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in confbrmity with the rules and regulations. 4. fo view ofthe foregome, this petition stands disnussed. No order as to costs. 5. Irrterim order granted on 22.01.2008 stands discharged. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Aralt