rn—x 3mm} mm: G29 / (:43 Wy/ C?b IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 w.P.(s1No. 53g IOF 2010 : / Smt. Sita Dongre, W/o Shri Krishan - Das Dongre, aged about 46 years, Supervisor— Office of Integrated Child Development Project (Department of ' Woman 8a Child Development) Durg (Rural), District-Durg, Resident of I House Noj.B/6, Street No.4, i. Panchsheel Sector—A, BorSi, District- z Durg (C.G.) ‘ VERSUS g State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Woman 85 Child Development Project, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Directorate— Department of Woman & Child Development, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) The- Collector, District-Durg (C. G.) Smt. Mamta Jain, Supervisor- Project (Pariyojna), Saja, ‘ District-Durg (C.G.) ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR _ , WRIT PETITION g3! No 701 of2010 PE I‘ITIONER : Smt Sata Dongre V ‘- I l vmsus 1 l RESPONDENTS , : State ofChh msgaxh & Others ‘ Shn N N Roy, Panel Lawyer for the to 3 ; Smt. Smita Ghal Panel Lawyer for the wspondant No { ORDER ORAL (Passed on04 day of January 2011) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 15.07.2010 1 I (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, working, as &1pervisor at f 7 Project Durg (Rural) has been transferred to Project Urban, ‘Seetor t I Ba1od Dlstnt Durg o learned counsel appearmg fox the petmoner subunts that by the y V unpugned transter order the petttloner has been transferre i accommodate the respondent No 4 and there 1s ne admimgmtlv v K t exlgency as such Smt Mnza further submrts ttm the Impugne _ transfer order 1s malaiide and arbm‘ary She next contends that the 3 ‘ petitioner 1s a heart patient and Mermg ham venous mhnents the i 1 treatmertt ot which Is gomg on at Durg hospltal The daught _ of ‘; the petmoner is a student of RLs Arts & Commerc w Durg and the nnpugted transfer 1n mrd acadenuc sessron would rum her future 3. E Per contra Shn Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearmg for the E state/respondent No l to 3 submlts that the muyed transfers I cannot be held as arbitrary or malafrde as alongwrth the petrtroner, ' -, ' as many as 111 emptoyees have been transferred horn one place t another Further the transfer of the petitioner 1s wrthm the st 1 e Drstnct Durg 1" ‘ (: I I 4 y i - e d ‘ w e ‘ ‘ ; n o @ It is well-settled that transfer is an iricidence of service and it is forr the employer to declde asto where a‘ attlcular oiiicer/employee be q posted, keepmg 1n v1ew public mte est as well as administrative z; ex1gency Th1s Court has lumted Junsdwtlon to mterfere wnh the transfer matter except m the ease of proved mala ede, non- . competence of authonty passmg the ansfer order and not bemg m V confomnty wtth the rules and regulations The petmoner has felled to estabhs? and pmve mala ”ride except w» the salt-same statement to that eEect The petitioner/employee l r cannot be pernntted to remam at one place forever Under the ‘ J prov1s1ons of servxce rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a partlcular place m View of publ1c utterest and admrmstratlve extgeney (See EPRoyappa v State ofTamlI Nada and another’, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debcmath & another}, State ofMP. and another v. SSKoumv and othersj _ andMohd. MasoodAhmad v. State oftLP. & Organ). , J The Supreme Court, inAirports Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan I : Pandey‘ & Others; held that “In a matter of" transfer of a s government employee, scope at Judrcral revrew rs lumted and the Htgh Court would not mtertere wrth an order oftransfer lightly, be -~ 1t at mterrm stage or fmal heanng This 1s so because the courts do I not substrtute their own deersron 1n the matter oftransfer" Even otherw1se, there ts no challenge to the impugaed order on any ‘ 1 permissible legal grounds as .aforestated, warranting interference. 8. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed; Sd/ S Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit 1 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (2004) 4 scc 245 4 (2007) s scc 15o / _ 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 ~5 _ (2009) 8 SCC 337 ‘