(a é§§§§§§§n§ 3EN£H IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. s No. 6E? /2o11 / PETITIONER : S.A. Khan, S/o Lafe shri M.A. Khan, aged abouf 52 year's, working as Forest Range Officer, Bilaigar‘h Range, R.O. Foresf Colony Bilaigar‘h, Dish‘. Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS : 1. V STaTe of ChhaTTisgar‘h, Through - The Secrefar‘y Depar‘rmem‘ of Forest D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur', (6.9.) The Under Secretary, Foresf Department STaTe of Chhattisgarh, D.K.$. Raipur (6.6.) The Divisional Foresf Officer (D.F.O, Raipur, (C;G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE DisH. Raipur’ Bhawan, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTIwLARs OF THE,P_E_,EO Disf‘r. Raipur RESPONDENTs ) HIGH C{'}URT {)F CHHATT§SGARH AT BUASWJR WRET ?ET¥I'ION {S§ No‘ $517 9f 261 i ?ETEE‘IQNER : SJLKhan. VER $1 iS RES?ONDENTS : Staie Qf Chhaiiiisgarh 8:, Others, WRIT E’E'fiTiON LNDER ARTICLE 226 OF Ti-EE CONS'I'ETUTEON OF EENEEA SB: Hmi’me Shri SatEsh K. Agnihmri. J. ?resent:Shri Samaar Bekar, Advocaie for ihe yetiticmer. (uJ. I. Shri 411m Sao, Goven‘mxent Aémocate for tm mamwspwcleiz‘ts. (}R§)ER {PagSed {3n E9‘vE‘ chy 6f Sap€em5en 2m }) Léamed couasel appsarmg for the yglitimer submits that Vigis order daied 1G,()8,.2611 (Annexure PA)? ms pétitimer, weiking ax SAKiian. Range Oflcar, Biiaigaih; Raipm‘ E'Qrest D§visi0m has been transferred i0 Fasarkhet. Foi€§ Divisim Karbai. on admim'straiivg grounds‘ Shri Bghar fimhéy submiis that undsr ihe mamfar palicy émisd 131062011: there is camylem ban en ”the 'fiaasfer of ciass I and ciass H oEmers. The petiticmea; being Ciass ii cfffxeer. camot ‘oe iramfen‘ed ii‘om his presem piace 9f gostiizg, Ii n ilexi. comemied that. the petitimaer ha< bee}: subjeeieii m i‘mqeem transfer (m aiier ‘ihe year EOE he hm been immfen‘ed eveyy year. On the ether hand” Shri $1210 Eeamw Qevei‘mnem Advocaée ayrraearing fer ihe Siate/resprmdems ellbmids ihai thexe is n0 iiiegamy or iilfmnity in the irmsfer order anci the same has been gasseii on amount of admixais§ative exigemy Thug this Cam“; mav not interfere Wm: the impuged iransfer arder. fie iiu‘féler lepbm‘its that by cireular dated 08,0820 1 1: the transfer poiicy (ia‘teti )b. E)! 1.3,G6.2G11 Qf £313 Siam has beexl amenésd $0 €115 $316111. thai in casg Csf urgem mama. in coorémaiimi with the. Chief Mmwer class i ami class 11 efficers may be transferred I Esard learned mumal appsarmg far the paM'ég pgrusai the pieadéngs and documeiats apyezldsd ihea‘sto. SQ far aa eontemgion of the leamed (2011:1361 fer iha yethioner that. $115 96i.i€ioner, baing a 61a“ 11 GfEmer cannot be transfsrredA, is concemsd, the same i$ mi5p1ac¢d m the impugned transfer order has been passed on 1&08201: and vide eireuiar dated ()8.Q8;.2G1 L ‘éhe transfer policy dateti 1106,2G11 has been amended if) the extent ihal in ease of urgent matters, in coordimtion wiih the Chief Ministen eiass I and elase H officers may be tranefened‘ J The other goand raised by ihe getiiioner thai he has beea subjeded to frequem fransfer is also misplaced as the iramfer orders have been QaSSed after a gap of almost one year as he has been traasferred en 31,98‘2007; 0911,29G8‘, 2209:2009: 143;"?‘2910 aud lassly; by the impugned ordeig on EQ”£)8XZQ11, “Ehus. it does nof faii within. the ambit of “Erequem. transfers”. The peiiiioner has not challenged the imnugned transfer order (m any ether germissible iegai groum ire, Violatren of any statutory ruEes er regmalions or 1aek. of competence of tine offieen yassmg E’he imnugeed order, it is well-semed that. transfer is an ineidenee of service ami it is for the employer to deeirie asto where a particular on'reeriempioyee be posted... keeping in View public interesi: as well as admirnsrrarive exigencyr This Court has iimited jurisdiction to interfere with me Ami: ( ( ( " 12w?) 3 sec 150 \ I a.__.._. ’iQ?-ft) 4 SEC 3 ‘ 2 1 tramfer matter axeegat i1: the gases of {armed ma/a J€dgg 110n- compétems of authority pagsing the transfer ordéyr and mt being in conformity with tha rules aild regulations. The patitiozxer/emyloyee camot ho poi‘mitted to ramain at one placo forevor, Under ms provisions of sorvioe mks? employei has all ma powors to post an emyloyee at. a. particular placo in View of olibiic iniorest and adminimative exjgoncya (See EZPRayagya v, Stare qfTamz‘l Nadu am! anarker’, Uman @flndz'a and ansgher v. Jamrdhaw Debaw§k :i‘ gmghef, 9 ta 0fMP. a aaoMahd MasaodAkmad v. Sras‘e 0fU. P. & Olkars"). 3f, 11a View of the above; tho petition is devoid of mom and 1s accordézlgly dismissod. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 74d ageotkgr v. $3K9urm? a: 5§ 0:!13rs3 004) 4 SCC 245 995‘: 3 SCC 270