c^\^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Sl No. 7?6^ OF 2010. PETITIONER ,->&y°^-:" ^i^ o.--^14T'^.-i-"" ^^'^-- y.'s°f" ••••'' {^ yw- Chandra Shekhar Mourya, S/o. Shri Subardhan Mourya, aged about 45 years, Dresser Grade-I, R/o. Block Colony Bakawand, District Bastar (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS \'^ ^u^ ; 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare DepEtrtment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jagdalpur, Distt^ District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QFTmE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '^ »sa^y- HIGH COUKI' OF CHHATI'iyGARH AT BIL^ PETITK^NER WRiT PEl'ITiQN (S) No. 7707 of2010 Chaiidra Shektiar Mourya. RESPONDENTS VEI State of'Ciihattisgarh & Aiiofiier. 'WKIT PEIiIiON UNDER AR'HCLE 226 OF IHE CQNSIII'UIION QF IND1A SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agiuhotri, J. rtesent: Shn Somltant Vei-ma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri A.V.Sliridliar, Panel Lawyerforthe Stats/responde (Passed oa 01st day of February, 2011) Challenge .in this petition is to the order dated 4-10-2010 (Aimexure - P/l) wherebv the earlier orders dated 16-9-2010 & 24-9-2010 were cancelled and the pe'dtioner was du'ected to join tlie new place of posting. The petitioner vvas working as Dresser at Cormnunity Health Centre. Bakawand, Disti-ict Bastar. Bv order daled 15-7-2010 Amexure - P/2), the petitioner was traiisferred to Piuuary Heal'th skilepal, on administrative giound. Accordirig to flie leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner, tfae petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 15-7-2010 in a writ petition. The writ petition was disniissed as witlidrawn resei-ving liber'n'' to the petitioner to make a represeritation. Thereafter, the representation. was filed. The order dated 15-7-2010 was cancelled by subsequent order dated 16-9-2010. Now by tiie impugned order dated 4-] 0-2010. the order dated 16-9-20.10 cancellmg tlie earlier order dated 15-7-2010 'aas been. caiieeljed and the origmai order dated 15-7- 2010 cas been revived. There is no specific circumstance, which exist in favour of the petitioner to mteifere with the admuustrative fatiction of the State Govermiient by posting ofan employee from one piace to other. ^l BiS B n RS' Be that as it mav, it is a trite law that transfer.'posting is an mcidence of sei-vice. The Court should not interfere vvith tiie transfer/postins order unless there is malice, infi-ingement of statutory mles and regulations. In the case on hand, the oetitiouer has failed to establish any oi' the aforeslated younds. The employee may be posted anywbere at the .iiistance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Fiu'ther, it is fbr the Govenuaent to post aiiother person ifany vacaiicy arises on accoimt oftransfer/posting of an employee. Tlius, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. Stcse ofTamnNadu cmdcmother, Shilpi Bose (S'-.'Irs.) ancf o .ers v. State ofBihcsr & anothei . State qfM.P. and another v. S,,S.Knun7 cincl oth€rv\ Moh-d. Masoocl Ahnidd'v. Stcne of U.P, <& OtJw.rs Chief Commercici.1 Mafscsger, Soitth Central P..aihva\i, Se-ic!-in€l€T€l.b€i.€i& CMhe-^s v. G. PM.tnQf'n & Otheys snd AiT'vo^'ts Aittko'it').'oflnd''a v. P-ajeev P.atan Pandey & Others ). Applvsne tiie well-settled principles of law to the tacts of the case on hand and tbr the reasons aientioned hereinabove; there is no merit in lai tlie resu.It. the writ petinon is dismissed at fhe motion siage itse.it. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit