mTHE HON'BLE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR fW.P. (S) No. ....&.y.^........./09) PETITIONER -S&. Ganesh Ram Sahu S/o. Shri Dhani Ram Sahu, Aged about 48 Year, R/o Village - Sell, Block - Kasdol, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENDS 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through: Secretary Tribal welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The DistrictEducationOfficer, w ^Jah& Distt. Raigab (C.G.) 3. The ChiefExecutive Officer Jila Panchayat Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner named above respectfully begs to submit as under:- 1 PERTICULARSOFTHEPETITIONER: Asmentioned in the cause title • 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPQNDENTS : As mentioned m the cause title ^K rfl 113111 :fK S'l' i I.i. •L : 1.1 ll.'l ~> t' it- 'flT i^HsiBirore'^'.- »• HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SiN0.6499 OF 2009 PETIT1QNER Ganesh Ram Sahu RESPONDENTS Versus . State of Chhaftisgarh and others (Writ petition under Arflcles 226 oftheConstjtution of tndia) Single Bench: Hon'ble ShriSatisK K.Agnihotri, J. Present: - Shri S. D. Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed onthis10"'dayofNovember,2009) With the consent of leamed counsel for fte parUes, e petitiori was heard finally. (2) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 09-10-2009 (Ahnexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raipur, passed in representation filed by the petitioner, pursuant to theiprder dated 19-08-2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(S.)No.4456 of 2009. The petitioner has eariier approached this Court by filing W.P.(S)No.4456 of2009 impugning the transfer orderdated 06-08-2009. Vide order dated 19-08-2009, on the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petition was dismissed as withdrawnwith libertytofile a representation beforethe concemed authorities. It was further directed that in the event, a representadon is made by the petitioner, thesame may be decided within a period of three weeks from the date of its receipt. The representation filed by the petitioner was dismissed on ^ ie ground that the order was passed stricUy in accordance With the rationalization scheme in public intereston account ofadministrative exigency. - ^?; ^s^.- (3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appehded thereto. This Court is of the view ttiat there is no irregularity or itlegality 6r unreasonableness in the order impugned herein, (4) Itis well-settled that trSnsfer is an ineideneeof serviceand it is for the employer to decide astb where a particular ofRcer/employee be posted, ii!-i!y,,..i),.,i^u,ii; mane sv •z. keeping in view public interest as well as adminlstrative exigency. This Court has limitedjurisdiction to interfere with thetransfer matter, except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing ttie transfer order and not being in conformity wjfft the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, emplbyer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place ih vfew of public interestand administrative exigency. (See E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another ,Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another^, State of M. P. and another v. S. S. Kourv and others3 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U. P. & others4). (5) Even othewise, the transfer is not a punishment but it is an incidenGe of sen/ice. Thus,the impugnedorder is unexceptionable. (6) In view of the foregoing, the petition being devpid of merit is dismissed atthe motion stage itself. _^— Sd/- SatishK-Agnihotri { -, Judge ^h ' 1974(4)3cc 3 2 (2004) 4 SCC 245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 ^ !