HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILA3PUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5811 of 2097 Pramod Kumar Gupta, S/o Lat Shri Sushi! Kumar GQptaJAged about 41 years, Rh). Village Batuaii Tahsi! Sitapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG); , Versu$ Resondents p 1 State of Chhattisgarh thraugh the, ecretary, Department of Tnbai elfare Department i‘ DKS‘ Bhavan‘ Mzahtraiay‘a, Raipur ({3G). Upper Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.s. Bhavan, Mantraiaya Raipur (CG). 3 Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Amblkapur, Sarguja (CG). 4 Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat‘ Batauli, Distriet ‘Sarguja .633)- {Writ Petition under Article 226 ‘ ofthe Constitution of indie.) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ren Shri $unil Tripethi, counsel forthe petitioner shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the Stat ORBER (Passed on 11‘" october, zoo? ) ' By this petition the petitioner challenges the impugned orde ~ r ated 7-7—2007 (Annexure Pi1), whereby the petitioner has bee d n ' ransferred from the office of Block Educatlon Officer, Batauh. Distric arguja, to the Government Higher Secondary School, Khadgawan, Disri Koea Asitant Grade l. tct r, as ss l 2 L col ap the t bmis hat ) earned unse pearing for peitioner sut t the impugned order is bad on two grounds Firstly, the petitioner has been traferrd tast m on -8-200 and this transfer has been made e i i i i i i i i i Petitioner e , S W 2 Pset: e. t t S nse tie 316 _ within a‘pefiod of one year that tantamounts to frequent ti'ansfers and v secondiy, transfer policy dated 13-6-2007 (Annexure PM) has been 4 L violatecl as the policv provudes for tran$ferLKéfmp|oyees as minimum as pOSSibie except in case of eXIgencv 3) Since the petitioner was transferred ‘on31 $42006 and thereafter transfer Was made on'7-7-2007, it oannOt be held that this tantamounts to frequent transfer. Secondty, the policy is in the nature of guideltnes,‘ ’which provide for transfer cf empt‘oyees as minimum a5 possible keeping in View the exigencv of‘service, The impugned order was! > passed transferring twenty offcers in admlnistrative exagency 4) it is weil Settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of " service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particuiar offcerlempiovee be posted keeping in rview pubiio interest as Wei! as administrative eXIgency This Court has iimited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter-and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved mala tide non-competence of authority passrng the transfer order and tansfer order not being conformity With the rules and regulations This is not the case in this netition ' 5) As a result and for the foregoing reasons mentioned hereinabcve; , l y this petition is dismissed summarily. i i i Sdl— . Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ‘