^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR (C.G.l W. P. (SLNo. °>^^ of 2011 / PETITIONER Ramratan Paikra, aged about 45 years, S/o Late Shri Boyaram Paikra, R/o D.C. Road, Forest Colony, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^••^^- ...•••' ..J". >**' % ..*** : 1.'" State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaiy, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiir(C.G.). Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division South Surguja (Ambikapur), District-Siu-guja ^C.G.) ^ 3. K.S. Khutia, Forest Ranger,, Rajpur Circle, North Surguja Forest Division, District-Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER :- As stated above in cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS :- As stated above in cause title. ORDER AGAINST WHICH PETITION IS MADE:- Order dated Passed by 09.02.2011 / / Respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P/l) ^? SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF : ; • By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is ^l challenging the unpugned transfer order dated ^ HIGH^OUmLQFmHATTISGARHATBnASPUR PETmONER WRET PETmON CS) No. 952 of2011 Ramratan Paikra. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgaA &0tha:s. WKIT PBimON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSnTUTION QE D'iDIA SB: Bfon'bte ShriSatish K. AanUwtri.J. Present: Ms.SiMutaJam,AdvocatefOTthepetitionw,^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ShriAjitSmgh,PanelLawyer£)rflieState.^ Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 3/Cayeator. (fWyE&WiRAI^^^.'..:^^^^^^^^^^^ (Passedou l7tIldayQfIiehruary,201]iy: i& 4. By Ihis petition, the petiticmer seelcs quadung of the (a'dei' d^:ed 09.02.2011 (Amiexure P/l) whereby the. petitioaer, wtnkjag as Forest Ranga-, has been transferred ft<an Kudurgsrit Eore^ Rat%e, Forest Diviskui South Surguja to North Suigtija FcaestssDivNon, Pratappur (Production), on acfanuustrative groun<fc. s Leamed counsel appearu^ fw the petitioner suhnuts thatthe impugned transfer order is arbitrary, unreasonable, aad unjust. The same has been passedin violaUon oftfietratasfer;polwy(rf'ftie^trte and further, the said order has been passedEJffimid-acadetme session which wouldadversely affeetthe stu<Mes ofthe ehildrai of the petitioner. Ms.-Jain further subnrits that there; is no admmistrative exigaicy and the impugned order has been passed justto accommodatelfae respondentNo.3. ; On the ofher hand, Shri A^it Sm^i, leamed PaBel Lawyw appearing fiw tiie State/r^pondent No. 1 and 2 .aihmits; thtfs&e3 impugned transfer order has been passed purely on adnMnistattive g-ounds as alongwith the petitioner, as many as 16 otha'pCTscms have beai transferred. Thus, the same caBnotbehieldasiiarfeitFaiy and unreasonable. ', Be that as it may, it is well-settled that ttansfer is an incideneg of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particuliff ^ •fc Amit 8. officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interestas well as adninistrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdietionto interfere with the transfer matter except inlhe cases ofproyed malafide, non-competence of authority passingtheteansferQrder and not being ia confomrity with the roles aad TegulatiQns. IIie ground raised by the petitioner that fhere is impending exaaiination of fhe ehildren of 1he petitioner, is tKrt a legally pemussible ground. The petitioner has failed to estabUsh aad prove his coirtenitions, except making selfeame statement. The petitioner/employee effnnot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Un<teAe pr<wisions af service rules, etnpk>yer has all the powers to post aa ffliiployees at a particular place m view of publie iuterest -and adBumgtEative esdgency. (See E.P.Royappav. StateofTamtl Nacluaf^anoffier/, Union oflndia cmd another v. JemarehcmBebimi^^cmelOw^^ State ofMf. and another v. S.S£ffuravand other^^^Mohal. MasoodAtmiadv.StateafUf.&Qthers^ ' ^^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ The Supreme Court, mAirpartsAuthantycfImiiav.RajeevRatan Pandey & Others , \ \A that "to a mrtter of i|ansfa- d'.a govemment axiplc^ee, scopeafjudicial review.is liaatriandiithe High Court would not interfere with aa order oftomsfer lightly, be it atmterim stage orfinalhearing. TUisis so becaus&fliftfCou^ iioitsubstitutetheirowndecisioninthematterofteaasfer". ; Even otherwise, there is no ehallengetolhe Bnpugied.ard !aBai@t pennissible legal grounds as afbrestated,waiiaatit^aitafaEamee. ? For the reasons as aforestated, tiie petitKMi,is disiaissed. N&grder astocosts. f~ ^.^^..Sdi^ SatishK.Agmhotri Judge '-1974(4)8cc 3 2(2004)4SCC245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007)85cc 150 sao09^8SCC337