BENCH o^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P (S) N0. /2011 PETmONER RESPQNDENTS Kamlakar Mahadev Rao Patil, S/o. Shri Mahadev Rao Patil, aged about 56 years, R/o. E-i, Irrigation Colony, D.C. Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja VERSUS;-?;-:"'"-: ^ ' • 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department,—D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur 2] Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Departmeiit, SiKawa Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3] R.P. Agrawal, Assistant Engineer, at present liolding Assistant Engineer /Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub-Division N0.1, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4] Superintending Engineer, Water Resources.Shyara Barnai Project Circle, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA ^f^^^SS^3^^vt:^a^^. fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2210 of2011 Kamlakar Mahadev Rao Patil. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J, Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govemmetn Advocate for the State. Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for the Caveator/respondent No. 3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 27th day ofApril, 2011) 1. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 23.04.2011 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P/4) transferring the petitioner, working as Executive Engineer, Shyam Bamai Project Ambikapur to Water Resources Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District Surguja, was cancelled and the respondent No. 3 has been posted at Water Resource Division No. 1, as In-charge Executive Engineer. Further, by the said order, the petitioner has been reverted back to his original place of posting i.e. Shyam Bamai Project, Ambikapur. 2. Shri Paranjpe, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in compliance ofthe order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner has joined the new place of posting i.e. at Water Resources Division No. 1, Ambikapur, on 01.03.2011. Thus, the order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P/4) stands executed. Once fhe transfer order is executed, the same cannot be cancelled. Further, the action of the State/respondents smacks of malafide exercise of power as the respondent No. 3 is holding the substantive post of Assistant Engineer and he has been posted as In charge, Executive Engineer, at Water Resources Division No. 1, where the petitioner has already joined as Executive Engineer, in compliance of the earlier transfer order dated 28.02.2011. %. K^ssh. ^ itaa! Amit A 1, On the other hand, Shri Gupta, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1, 2 and 4 submits that the impugned order of transfer dated 23.04.2011 has been passed in administrative exigency. However, he fairiy submits that once a transfer order is executed, the same cannot be cancelled. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadmgs and documents appended thereto. In the opinion of this Court, once fhe transfer order is executed, it is not necessary to cancel the same. The employer is always at liberty to pass an order of transfer and posting of an employee, keeping in view the administrative exigency and public interest. This Court, in an identical matter i.'e. Brajendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , observed that once the transfer order is executed, the same cannot be canceled. It was further observed that the employer is always at liberty to pass an order of transfer and posting keeping in view the administrative exigency and public interest. Admittedly, the petitioner has complied with the order dated 28.02.2011 (Aimexure P/4) and the respondent authorities have cancelled the same after compliance of the transfer order by the petitioner, which is unjust. Thus, the impugned order dated 23.04.2011 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved.to the respondent/employer to pass an order, if so advised, in accordance with law, keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. judge SiHIiSIIIp^^.S^^^ 009, dated 09.03.2010