HON‘ BLE s. B. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION s No. 35 9” 2010 PETITIONER: %I@ Mahendra Kumar Pandey, S/o Lt Shri B.G. Pandey, Aged about 45 years, Post- Lab Technician, R/o Sai Colony Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. / VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Health, Famiiy Welfare & Medical Education, Ministry, D.K.S. Building, Raipur C.G. 2 The Director, , Directorate of Health SerVIces Raipur District Raipur, C G / 3. The Director, ‘ Directorate of Medical Education, Raipur, District Raipur, C:G. f, 4. The Dean, Medical College, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. y S. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. {The Civii Surgeon & Chief Hospitai Superintendent, Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NDIA a‘ I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH '. BILASPUR WRIT PETlTlON (S) NO.1387 OF 2010 Mahendra Kumar Pandey _ Versus Siate of Chhattisgarh & Others 6 of the Constitution of India) Hon‘ble Shri SatishiK. Agnihotri, J. PETlTlONER RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Article 22 Single Bench : Presentt- Shri Aiok Dewangan, Advocafe for the petitioner. ShriN N Roy, PaneILawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Pgssed on this 15‘ day of April, 2010) 1. With the consent of legality and validity of PI1) by which the‘petitioner learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the- the order dated 18-3-2010 (Annexure— has been transferred from Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur to Primary Health Centre, lrejpal, Jagdalpur. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inted to the Medical College, Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur and thereafter by order dated 24—2-2006 (Annexure- P/2) entire impugned transfer order is vitiated, as the petitioner was appo administrative control Of employees of Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur was handed it: over to the Directorate, Medication Education, though there is no prohibition from transferring from Medical College, Mahar Hospital or any other college or any other place, however the d order is vitiated because the same is passed treating the Learned counsel further submits ani impugne petitioner as surplus employee. e, therefore, junior \ that the petitioner is the senior most employe ~~\‘\ / \ empioyees who are appointed after the petitioner may be transferred. 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. All the empioyees in the Medical Department are under the controi 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 on a simple ground that there may be less vacancies and there may be more vacancies in, Medical colleges/hospitals, it is for the Government to 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. It appears to be clear case of public interest and administrative exigency. While transferring the employees the seniority list cannot be considered, because the transfers are made for smooth functioning of the administration. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that instead of his transfer his junior may be transferred is not sustainable. The petitioner has failed to establish the mala fide, breach of statutory provisions and lack of competence of the officer 3W passing the impugned transfer order. Thus, the transfer order is just and proper. 6. Be that as it may, it is a trite iaw that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is maiice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. in the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The 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 another’, 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 & Others6). 7. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit Gowri in the case. 8. ln the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. a Sdl- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI ‘ a ‘ Judge 1 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995) 3 SGC 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337