SINGLE BENCH ^^•}^^ ..^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARHAT BILASPUR W.P.fSl NO.M 1^ ^ / 2011 PETITIONER : . R.P.Mishra S/o Shri S.K.Mishra, 57 Yrs, Pregect Ranger, Antagarh Forest Division, C.G.Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., Bhanupratappiir, Distt. Kanker-(C.G.) VERSUS C.G. Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., Through : Managing Director, Lokash Plaza, Shanker Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.). Regional Manager, e.G.Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., Raipiir-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^>!^-' '^'"" RBSPONDENTS 1) 2) ..^' ' ffl ^ .,. *tl:5 . r \i\' '£'.i-v %'^ '^~ ^,sy •^ hNNNft, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4148 OF 2011 PETITIONER R.P. Mishra Versus RESPONDENTS C.G. Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Prafull Bharat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day of July, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Antagarh Project Division, Bhanupratappur to Bhadwahi Plantation, Sarguja, Ambikapur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent authorities without having any administrative exigency and on account of transfer of the petitioner, the petitioner and his family members shall suffer irreparable loss, as the children of the petitioner are prosecuting their studies at Bhanupratappur. Even in place of the petitioner, no one has been posted and the impugned order has been passed with mala fide intention only to harass the petitioner. 4. Mere statement of mala fide does not hold that there was a mala fide exercise of power. The petitioner has to establish by cogent reasons on production of documents, pertaining to related activities toshow that mala fide was exercised in passing the impugned transfer order. The petitioner has failed to prove the mala fide and lack of competence of the officer passing the impugned transfer order. There 41 Gowri is also no altegation of violation of statutory provisions of law. Thus, the transfer order is just and proper. 5. 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 exjgency. 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 another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another2, State of M.P. 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). 6. 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 in the case. 7. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^^ 1 1974(4)8cc3 2 (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995)33cc 270 4 (2007)88cc 150 5 (2007)88cc 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337