HIH G COURT OF CHHATT’ISGARH : BS ILAPUR WRT PET S OF 201G I iTlON (3} NUQQ Ramadhar Sinha Versus t hgh & h Stae of Chartisar Oters ‘mt eiton uner'rtice 226 of the Consuon o :ina Singie Bench : Hon’bie Sim Satish . ho RESPONES DNT CRDER (ORAL) i (Passed m tha; 0‘” day of March 201 0) Ith the consent of ieamed couwsel anneanm for te na‘e h rts ' k‘ge petition Is heard finany. é i By this petition; the petitioner cha‘iienes te iai an faiidity of‘the order dated 15-2-261 {nneure — ii‘),io' shich the‘petitioner has been trarisferred fro District Jaii orba to Sub Jaii Pendraroaci U t i I iom Centrai Jail: Biiaepur to Centrai aii, ora and win eriod of one year the impugned transfer order has been assed and that too during the ban period The order is ontrary to the transfer policy. Learned counsel furthe ubmits that: the petitioner is going to retire] from his service within a period of twoyears i.e. 31—1-2012. i i have heard teamed pounsei appearing for the petitioner, perused the pieadings and the documents appended i i i earned counsei appearing for the petitioner submite tha e p f ariier by order dated 25—3-2008 the etitioner was transerred f J Ke ith a p p c r: ‘ s K Agnitri, J . (V Pti dAi titti f di)» l I ’: :- Shri Vineet Pandey, Advocate orte petitione Pre em fh r. ; Shn N N Roy, Panei Lame! .prtne State g h égiiy d» § v 0 AX Py m , The contention of the eltloner deserves i0 b it cted on the simple ground thai in a catena of decisionS ide it is» not enforceable by way f writ in exercise o wri f t sdrctron of the High Court The rra sfer pohcvfcrrcuiar doe ansfe odrhas ben t have force of a sktute The rr re e 1 assed on the basis of administrativ exigency ater otaini prior aporoval of’the Chief Minister. Fy the impugned transfe i 5 been heid tha’t transfer policyioir ‘uiar is a mere gueiin Rf i f bng i . x g k orJFer aiong wrth the petitioner 17 more employees hav r e been y transferred to different places The oetitloner has fad i i prove the male ftde and lack oi comoetence of the officer ’ :- leiust and proper. l B;e that as it may, it is a trite law that transferiposting is an 3 incidence of service. The Court shouid not interfere with the transfenpostmg order unless there is mairoe infringement of statutory ruies and regu ations n the case on hand, the etitioner has failed to estabiish any of the aforestated ‘§ érounds The empioyee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative e’xigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy ariseson account of trensferiposting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no . v interference. (See EPRoyappa v. State of Tamil Nada and anothefShi Bose {it/ire.) and others v, State of Bihar & pessmg the impugned transfer order. Thus, the transfer order ‘ l 2 i 4 4)8Cc eFeto p e s ile to 3‘ i f i , ’ iM i 1197 (3‘ _ J ?hd. Massed Ahmad v. Sfefe e ir‘UP. & Ofhers4 Chi d Airparts Authwity c- n f on hand and fr the reasons entioned hereinabov e o ’ e; {there is no mark in the case I . 'smsse at e mati ciid th on tage itsel s f. CE in 1 ‘the resuit‘ the writ pe‘titian i “ s Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ) w (1991‘ 8 r 2 _&¥4M*"'” , M ef i {K v