^••\.-fLJIt.>L*l ^ KS.-^. (OL rff ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PE'lTfIONER RESPONDENTS WRTT PETmON (S-) 4360 of2008 Smt. Lalita Merkam W/o Shri Mohan 1-^1 Merkam, aged about 42 years, R/o Kondagaon, P.8. Kondagaon, District Jagdalpur (CG). VERSU8 ]. State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough Secretary, Cooperative Society Department, DKS Bhawan; Raipur (CG). 2. Chairman, Zila Sahalcari Samitiyan, Jagdaipur (CG). 3. Deputy Registrar, Sahakari Samitiyan, Jagdalpur (CG). 4. Chief Executive Oftlcer, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maiyadit, Jagdalpur (CG). 5. Manager, Zila Sabakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Jagdalpur(CG). WRIT PE1T1ION UNDER AHTICLE 226 OF rHE CONSTITU riON OP INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shrt Sateh K. AenihotA J. Present; Shri J.K. Shashtri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDBft (Passed on 8U1 day of August, 2008) 1. The petitioner impugns Ifae transfer order dated 28.07.2008 (Annexure P/7), whereby, the petitioner has been transferred by the Chief Executive Officer ofthe respondent Bank, from Kondagaon to Branch Sukma, on the post of Accountrfnt. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order is bad in law on following grounds, firstly it comes within purview offrequent transfers, secondly the substanth?e post ofthe petitioner i^l ggi is^i se eis ^i HB BS SH BB n SB m..,-i -37 is Accountant but some Accountants are being posted as Officer-in-charge ofthe Branch, and thirdly, her husband is posted at Kondagaon. 3. The petitioner was earlier transferred by order dated 07. 11.2007 (Annexure P/6) and posted at Kondagaon as officer-in-charge of the Branch from Makdi Branch to Kondagaon Branch within the same Tahsil, and thereafter, the present impugned transfer order dated 28.07.2008 was passed. The first posting of the petitioner from oae Branch to otfaer Branch within the same Tahsil was made in November, 2007, and the present fransfer order was passed on 28.07.2008, thus, this cannot come within the purview offrequent transfers. Accordingly, the first contention ofthe petitioner is rejected. 4. With regard to seeond contention that the petitioner was working as In- charge of the Branch, thougb her substantive post was Accountant, is misconceived. If tbe substantive post of the petitioner is Accouiitant, the petitioner can be posted at any place on tfae post of Accountant. By working as In-charge Branch, the petitioner do not acquire any right to be posted as Branch in-charge only in other places, and the third ground ofposting ofher spouse is not a legal ground on which ground the present petition should be entertained. The impugned order indicates that the order has been passed due to administrative exigency. 5. Transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest «s well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and tfiis Court can intertere only in the case of proved mala tide, non-competence of authority passinj the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be pennitted to remain at L ! •]7 one place, forever, by Court orders. It is not a case ofproved maiafide, lack of competence of the officer passing the transfer order or mfraction of any statutory Rules and Regulations. 6. The petitioner has not made out a case for showing interterence with the transfer order on the above stated permissible grounds, thus, Ae petitioa is devoid ofmerit. The petition is dismissed summarily. Saliu Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge ' •