@ $3M¥3H§ BENW IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(s) No. ‘Vroa 5’ OF 2011 (W Ashok Kumar Lal, S/o Shri D. Lal. Aged about 59 years, Working as Accountant, Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1./ State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, DiStt. Raipur (CG) Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, Housing & Environment, Transportation, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. vRaipur (CG) Collector, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG Chief Executive Officer, ‘Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 7005 OF 2011 (Wlit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shit Satish K. Agnihotrl. J. Present :- Ms. Fouzia Mirza. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao. Govemment Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 25“; day of November, 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.072011 (Annexure P-1). whereby. the petitioner. working as Amountant in Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon. has been transferred to Janpad Panchayat Mohla. on administrative grounds. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is performing his duties honesty. sincerely and with utmost satislaction of the authorities. There is also no complaint whatsoever against the petitioner during his past servioe tenure. Further. only 11 months are left for his superannuation. thus. at the fag end of his service career. he may not be transferred as even under the transfer policy of the State. it a is provided that in such conditions. transfer may not be done. Smt. Mirza further submits that the petitioner has also made a representation on 08.08.2011 (Annexure PI1) in this mgard which has not yet been decided. Even. the Chief Executive Officer. Janpad Panchayat. Rajnandgaon. has also recommended that the services of the petitioner are very muchtrequired. thus. his representation may be considered sympathetically. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4. After passing of the impugned order on 15.07.2011 (Annexure PI1), the petitioner made a representation on 08.08.2011 (Annexure PIZ). PETITIONER Ashck Kumar Lal Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Othets »AN. , Thereat1er. the petitioner has med this petition on 22.11.2011. Thus. the petitioner himself has waited ior almost four months for approaching this Court. Even otherwise. the petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permi$ible legal ground i.e. malatide. violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer. passing the impugned order. Thus. no rellef as sought for may be granted. 5. lt 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 ts 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.Royapp_a v. state of Tamil Nada and another’, smlpl Bose. (Mrs) and others. v. Stare ar Blhar & anothef, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. &. Others" Chlef Commercial Manager, South Central Rallway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5 and Airports Authority of Indla v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others”). 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. Accordingly. the writ petition is dismissed. However. the petitioner may pursuehis representation pending‘beforejhe respondent:authortties,‘.jf., é so advised. ”Mk Sd/— SATISH K. ANGNIHOTRI Judge 1 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (1991) Suppz sccs59 a (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 (2009}8 SCC 337 6 s (2007) 8 SOC 212 ‘ r