:L r mNGLE 5mm} IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (S) No. @232? x201 1 M, PETITIONER : Dr. Ajit Ram Shanna, S/o Lt Shri R.S. Shanna aged about 59 years, currently working as Ayurved Medical Officer at Government Ayurved Hospital, Bastibahra, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS b RESPONDENTS : 1f State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare % Department, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) M 2. Under Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) w; 3. Director, Department of AYUSH, Old Nurses Hostel, Behind Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) y 4. District Ayurved Officer, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) x 5. District Ayurved Officer, Bainur, Distt. Narayanpur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The Petitioner named above most respectfully submits as under: — M, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.623O OF 2011 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri‘ J. Present :~ Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 19‘ day of October, 201 1) Learned couhsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner, working as Ayurved Medical Officer has been transferred from Biiaspur to Narayanpur, on administrative grounds. Shri Shukla further submits that under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011, there is'complete ban on the transfer of class l and class ll officers. The petitioner, being Class ll officer, cannot be transferred from his present place of posting. On the other hand, Shri Sao, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the transfer order and the same has been passed on account of administrative exigency. Thus, this Court may not interfere with the impugned transfer order. He further submits that by circular dated 08.08.2011, the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 of the State has been amended to the extent that in case of urgent matters, in coordination with the Chief Minister, class l and class ll officers may be transferred. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the. pleadings and documents appended thereto. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, being a class ll officer cannot be transferred, is concerned, the same is misplaced, as the impugnedtransfer order has been passed on 13.10.2011 and vide circular dated 08.08.2011, the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 has been amended to the extent that in case of urgent matters, in coordination with the Chief Minister, class i and class ll officers may PETITIONER Dr. Ajit Ram Sharma Versus RESPONDENTS State /? be transferred. The impugned order has been passed in coordination with the Chief Minister. 5. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order. 6. lt is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved ma/a fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa vt State of Tamil Nadu and another’ Union of India and another v Janardhan Debanath & anothei2 State of M P and another v S S Kourav and others and Mohd Masood Ahmad v State of U P & Others ) 7. ln view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHOTRI Gowri Judge (1974)4SCC3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 (1995) 3 scc 27o (2007) 8 SCC 150