7 w Wz’Z/ C? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w. P. (S) No. é) 3 9.12009 PETITIONER Banwari Lal Sahu, S/o — Late Shri Bhandari ram Sahu, Aged about 51 years R/o Village — Premnagar, Distt. Sarguja 1 Presently working as Head Master In Middle school Vindhyachal, Block — Premnagar, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, VERSUS / RESPONDENTS 1— State of Chhattisgarh, Through — Secretary, Adim Jati 85 Anushuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, / 2 . Collector, Ambikapur, Distt. — Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja C.G. 4. Block Education Offlcer Ambikapur, Distt‘ ~ Sarguja (C.G.) st \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE . CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS! CERTIORARI ETC. ‘\ \ \ N \ I, / Q \ N HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ' BILASPUR WRIT PETITION j§lN0. 61 3712009 Banwari La} Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh and anthers (Writ Petitien under Articie 226 ef the Consiitution of fndEa) ’ Present :~ Shri N. K. Mehta, counse! for the petitioner. Shri A. V. Sridhar, Pane} Lawyer for the State. (Passed on this 27‘“ day of Ocober 2009) With the consent of learned counse} for the parties, the petition is heard r‘maéiy. (2) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order detect 30-Oe-2069 (Annexure PM) passed y the respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner, who is working as Hed Master, hae heen transferred from Middle $choi, Saraswatipur, Biock Prem Nagar to Primary $chooi Bheia Gare, Biock Tamr, District Raigarh. {3) The main challeng of the petitioner in this writ petition is that on the same day, by order dated 3006-260g (Annexure-P/4), the respontient No.3/ Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Weifar Department, Ambikepur, has transferred the petitioner from Middle Schooi, SerasWatipur, Block Prem Nagar to Middie School Vindhyechal, Block Prem Nagar. within the ‘same biock i.e. Prem Nagar and thereafter, the Government under signature of Deputy Secretary transferred him to Raigarh. . (4) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order herein earlier in W.P,(S.)No.4228/2009 (Banwarital Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to make a <\ representation within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the oopy \ofthis order. in turn, it was further directed that the respondent authorities PETJTIONER RESPéNDENTS in ie Bench: Honble Shri S tish K. A nihotri J ORAL ORDER t, b a o na e - .e K \ $4 weuld decide the representation within a period of three weeks fmm the date of its receipt. Thereafter, the $ecretary to the Govt. cf Chhattisgarh, Devewpmeni of Tribe! Weifafe and Scheeuied Caste Departmem decided the representation of the petitiener by order ciateé 23-09-2OD§ (Annexure Pi?) hoiding that the erder passed eariier‘ was on account ef administrative exigency and. as such. rte amendment was required. (5) The petitioner has fiied this petition again impugning the order dated 30-06-2009. whieh was a subject matter of W.P.(S.)No.4228/2009, and as such, the same is not permitted. However, there is mention 0f order dated 23- Q9-2009 aiso. i have gone through the order dated 23—09—2009 (Annexure P/2). (6) i have heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. {7) The petitioner is raising a new ground that the petitioner has been transferred to a place where no vacant poet of Head Master is avaiiabie. The petittoner must have raised this ground eariier in W‘P.(S.)No.4228i2009, which was decided on 30-G6-2OGQ (3) It is welt-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the empioyer to decide asto where a particuier ofticerlempioyee be posted, keeping in view pubiic interest as weii as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the'transier matter, except in the cases oi proved malatide, non-competence oi authority passing the transier order and not being in conformity with the ruies and reguiations. The petitioner/empioyee cannot he permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, empioyer has ail the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E. P. Royappa v. State 0t Tamil Nadu and another-1, Union of lndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath 3. another2, State of M. P. and another v. 8. S. Kourv and otherss and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U. P. 3.. others‘). i 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (2004) . 4 soc 245 \\ 3 (1995) 3 soc 27o '\\\\t (2007) 8 soc 15o \\ \\ ‘\.\ (9} any permissible Iega! grounds as impugned transfer order. a{ aHenge in the impugned transfer order on aforestated, warranting interference with the Sd/- L 7 '\ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Even otherwise, there is no ch i