@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4039 of2007 PETITIONER : Shalini Dalela W/o Prasant Shrivastava aged about 37 years Occupation —— Pmject 0Ecer in Woman Child Development Department R/o Borsi Distn'ct — Durg (C.G.) VERSUS . The State of C.G. Through the Secretary of Department of Woman and Child Development, D.K.s. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Deputy Seeretary Department of Woman and Child Development D.K.S. Bhawanr Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Secretary Public Service Commission Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench : Hon’ble Justice Shri Satish K. Apiihotri. Shri‘Samir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn‘ Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent 1 and 2. ORDER (Passed on 12m day of July, 2007) The petitioner who is working as Unified Project Oifieer, Women and Child Development Depamnent, Durg (City), is aggrieved by the order dated 29m June, 2007 (Annexure P/l), issued by respondent No. 2, whereby she has been transferred horn Durg (City) to Rajmndgaon, in the same capacity on the same pay-scale. The petitioner questions the validity ofthe impugned transfer order firstly on the gound that the petitioner has not been paid salary from March 2007 to June 2007, and secondly, the petitioner has got a small child aged 11/2 years and her husband is working at Durg. @ The transfer order cannot be interfered with on the above-stated grounds which are not legally sustainable. Ifthe petitioner is not paid salary, she is entitled to the same wherever she is working. Posting of the husband a1 Durg is no ground for interfering with the transfer order. Be that as it may, it is well-settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular oiiicer/employee be postetL keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the cases of proved malafide, non—competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. In View of the foreoing, this petition stands dismissed. No order as to g costs. Satish K. Agnihotri " ‘"H—’iu:An e A