G) smGLE EE$§S§I IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (0.6) WPJSmc. Qm OF 2914i f“ Smt‘. Vinita Meshram; aged about 38. yearS, S/o Late Jayvant Meshram, Revenue Peon, Office of Tahsiidar Chhura, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS / :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Additional Collector, Gariyaband, Raipur (C_G.) Tahsildar Chhura, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. WRET §ETiTiGN UNDER ARTECLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUI0N OF iNiA mil HIGH COURT OE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SI No. 6831 OF 2011 PETITIONER Smt. Vinita Meshram Versus State of Chhamsgarh & Others (Wnt Petition under ArtIGIe 226/227 of the Constitution of |ndla) Slnale Bench Hon’ble Shn Satlsh K Agnlhotn J resent :- Shn K K Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner Shrl P K Bhadurl Panel Lawyer for the State RESPONDENTS ORDER (Passed on this 21“ day of November, 201 1) 1. By this petitiun, the petitioner seeks the legality and validity of the order, dated 03 11 2011 (Annexure P—1) whereby, the petitioner has been attached to the offce of Janpad Panchayat Chhura from the Tahsll ofiice, Chhura. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits‘that the impugned order has been passed’onty on the basis of arfalse complaint. In fact, against the said complaint, a show cause notice has been issuedito the petitioner on 11102011 (Annexure P—2), to which they petitioner submitted her reply on 02.11.2011 (Annexure P-3). The respondent authorities without appreciating the reply submitted by the petitioner in its letter and spirit passed the impugned order by attaching her in the office of Janpad Panchayat Chhura, which is against the transfer policy. Thus, this petition. On perusal of the record. it appears that the impugned order“ has been passed on the ground that there Is a senous complaint agamst the petitioner and Iooklng to the administrative extgency, the petitioner has been attached in the office of Janpad Panchayat Chhura. ln Clause 4(2) of the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011, it has been clearly mentioned that before completion of the period of three years, the employee can be transferred, if there is any serious complaint against the concerned employee. if a P I 2.‘ 4. Be that as n may n Is a tme law that transfer/posting Is an Incidence of semce The Couri should not Interfere With the transfer/posting order unless there Is malice, Infnngement of statutory rules and regulations. tn the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further! it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy l arises on acoount of transfer/posting of an emptoyee Thus the Impugned order warrants no interference (See E P Royappa v State of Tamil Nada and another’, Shllp: Bose (Mrs) and others v. Stale of Binar & anothetz, state of MP. and another v. S.-S.Koun/ and othersa, Mohd. ‘ Masood Ahmad v. State of LLP.’ & Others‘ Chief Commercial Manager, South Central RaiMay, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam &’ Omets5 and Airports Authority of India v. RajeevRatan Pandey & Others5). 5. r Applying the well-settled prinoiples ofnlaw to the facts, of the case on hand’a‘nd for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit-sin the case. ’ Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ‘ Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok i 1974 (4) soc 3 a: 2 P1991) Qupp 2 QCC 659 3 (1995) 3 soc 27o (2007) a soc 219 ‘ w 6 (2oo9) e scc 337 r 4 (2007) a scc450