a^? ({{yol.- INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATISGARH) ./' W. P. N0. ^i^ OF 2003 PETITIONER i RESPONPENTS r'^ ^' Ramesh Chandra Shrivastava, S/o. Late Shri Ram Swarup Shrivastava, Aged about 52 years, Presently posted as Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, 0/0. The Executive Engineer, Tandula Water Resources Divn., Durg (C.G.) VER S U S f1. Principal Accountant General, M.P. 85 Chhattisgarh, New Building, Jhansi Road, Gwalior (M.P.) Accountant General(A&E)-I, 53, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Branch, Bhopal(M.P.) Sr.Dy.Accountant Generalf\Vorks Accounts), 53, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Branch, Bhopal (M.P.) WMT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE JZ.26^ Qf^_THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORAm. MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WMTS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: ^^ ^-y' ^^' 1 COURT OF CHHATTIS^RH AT BILASPU^ VVrit Petition No. 2018 of 2003 Petltjoner: Ramesh Chandra Shrivastava Versus Respondents: Prjncipal Accountwtt 6@neral, M.P. & Chhat^ssgarh and others Sir^le Bench: Hon'bSe Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. 5hrf ^shish ShrfVastava, ^dvoaite for the petftfoner. Shri S-K, Berlwal, Advocate for th©respondents ORDER (Passsd on 8th Day of January, 2007) 1, counsel for the petitioner that the petitjoner was eraployed as Senior DivJslonaj Accounts Offjcer in the Office of the Engincer, Tendula Divjsion, Durg, By 27.2003 (P/4), fne frora Tenduia Water Division, Durg to Executive Engineer (E c& AAv), Machinery Tube-welS & Division, Durg, 2, Tne petjtloner, aggrfeved, filed this petition the transfer order doted 2.7.2003 (P/4) on the 9round 1+iat the order by an officer with malice, 3. Thls Court, vide order dated 11.7.2003, stayed the effect operation of the order dated 2,7.2003 (p/4}, tiie petltioner contjnued to at tiie old of posti'ng i,e< Tendula Water Djvisi'on, Durg, Tne petitio?aier about 3 y^rs and 6 months at Durg. Jhe petitioner has been 9ranted final reiief by order, Jhe petitioner not at one forever. 4 It is wdS setfrbd princjpte of law that is wi Incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particu!ar be in view interest as as aarriinistratlve cxigency, Tliis Court jurisdiction to m 1+ie transfer matS-er ofjd thls Courl' CCTI interfere oniy in the of mahflde, non-conipetencc of authority fne and not in conformity with tiic and reguiations, In the and cJrcumstGnces of the it is not to examine validity' of transfer order at 5, Without into vaiidlty of the impugned order, the are accordingly directed not to inslst on of the Jmpugned 27.2003 (P/4) a of than 3 years 6 months, However, the respondents-authorities are at liberty to piace/post the petitioner at any if intcrest and/or administrotive exigency so require, 6, Tn@ writ i^ accordingty of. No order as to costs, Bab!u Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge