4 A CA (W BEFORE'THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISR T BILASPUR w “3$ 1 .P(S)No. - 5 1201 ejnath Singh s/o Gopal Singh, age about 46'ears, u Inspector-of oc, lice Station Gandhi agar, Dstric Surgua(.) l-rq nq— ‘w VUS ERS ER r PETlTlON The State of'hhattisgarh, Through the Secretar, Department of ome, DKS. Bhawan, ipur (CG) .. Ra .. RTS ESPONDEN TheyeDirectort General of olice,’ hhattisgarh, eadqualters, f‘slfj , P C H Rgibii'r, c.G. he Alns‘pector General of Polic T e (Aaminigtiation)‘ Raipur, Chhattisgarh. he Superintendent of Poce, urguj t Ambikapur, istrict Surguja,‘C. Polie c WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH CONSTITUTION OF INDI GAH A T d y Sb Plie Po N it r jCG. C : y H T li Sa a D G. E A. /w ' é,/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1092 of 2011 PETITIONER : Tejnath Singh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri A.K.Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner’ Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/repsonents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 25“ day of February, 201 1) By thig petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 16.08.2010 (Annexure — P/l) whereby petitioner, working Sub-Inspector in District Surguja, has been transferred to District Beejapur. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitoiner is being transferred every year, except the year 2007. Thus, it comes within the definition of frequent transfer as on the earlier . it occasions, the petitioner was transferred on various dates viz. 21.05.2005, 28.05.2006,, 26.7.2008, 15.07.2009 and lastly, on 16.08.2010. Shri Prasad further submits that the petitioner has again been transferred to a scheduled area only to harass the petitioner, which is malaflde exercise of power. He further submits that no other person has been posted in place of the petitioner. He next contends that since this Court has quashed the order of reversion of the petitoiner from the post of Sub Inspector to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, the respondent authorities, in order to harass the petitoiner, have passed the impugned transfer order. wwmwmwww‘mwwmw m 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the transfer order has been passed by the competent authority on the basis of administrative exigency and there is no violation of statutory rules in passing the order. 4. I have heard leamed counse appearing for the parties, perused the l pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 5. Frequent transfer means, an employee is transferred frequently on several occasions within a short span of time. The grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order comes within the ambit of a frequent transfer, is not well established and not sustainable in law as the earlier transfers were made only after lapse of one year, particularly in the month of May, July and August. The further grievance of the petitoiner that the reversion of the petitoiner to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector was quashed by this Court, (no order to this effect has been produced) thus, the impugned order is malafide exercise of power, is unsustainable as by the impugned transfer order, not only the petitioner, but 30 more persons have been transferred. The allegation of malaflde is a mere selfsame statement, unsupported by any documentary evidence, or otherwise and there is no linkage to establish the allegation of malafide. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, 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 MW mmmusw‘ z IrW N» “W‘W mm rww mw v V M m W, (b 3 Am if ‘ 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 3 4 (1995) 3 scc 27o (2007) 8 scc 150 s (2007) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337 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. Staté of Tamil Nadu and another’, Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others State & anotherz, State and another v. ofBz'har ofMP. v. S.S.Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. 'State of U.P. & Others 4 Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others 5 and Airports 7. Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & 0thers6). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinaboye; there is no merit in the case. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Agn‘“° tri Satish K' Jndge