^^ 1ff^l. @ THB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS.lNO. 7S^ 72010 PETITION1ER: .,,.^ ^•7f^r ^\- VERSUS RESFONDENTS 2. 3. Anjor Singh Paifera S/o Late Bhuwanlal Paikra, aged about 38 years, Caste Urao, (Schedule Tribe] working as Additional Tahsildar Dharsinwa, District fiaipur (C.G.] State ofChhattisgarh Through Secrefary Govemmenf of Chhattisgarh Department of Hevenuc, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.6.) The Cpllector Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Haryansh Miri S/o Unknown to Petitioner, aged about unlmovm fo petitioner working as Tahsildar, Tahsil Dham.dha» District Durg (Chhattisgarh) t^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OR WRITS CERTIORARY IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS PROHIBITION. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begS to subm^ as under' HIOH COURT OP Writ Petltion (81 No. 7S6 of 2010 '^ PBTITIONBR RB8P011DBNT8 Anjor Siagh Paikra VIBRSUS State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. AgnUiotifi, J.) Shri. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A. V. Shridhar, Paael Lawyer for the respondents. ORDBRtOrall (Passed on this 22nd day ofFebruary, 2010) Heard. 1, The petitioner has filed fhis petition challengmg the order dated 21,8,2009 (Aniiexune P/6), passed on fhe representation ofthe petitioner as weU as fhe transfer order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P/2). 2. Indisputable brief facts, ia nutsheU, are that by order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P/2) fhe petitioner, who was workmg on the post of Tahsildar at Tahsil - Dharsmva, Distdct ~ Raipur, was transferred to Distdct ~ Sui^uja. Bemg aggrieved by the transfer order, fhe petitioner filed Writ Petition (S) No, 3510/ 2009 on the maui grouixd that fhe petitioner was victim of J&equent transfers and wifhia a period oftwo years, he has been transferred about 8 times. 3. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.7,2009 (Annexure P/l) wifh Hberty to fhe petitioner to file a rcpresentation within ten days and fhe respondents werc directed to consider and decide the same withia a period of three weeks, 4. By the impugued oider dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P/6) the representation of the petitioner has been decided wifh tibe observation that the petitioner was transferrcd ia accoxdance wifh the transfer policy 2009-10. ^^MSS 5. Learaed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner reiterates the submissions of frcquent transfer. He furfher submits that representation of fhe petitioner has been rejected without assigning any reason, fhe traasfer of the petitioner is not ia accordaace with fhe traasfer poUcy and fhe wife of fhe petitioner is pregnaat 6. Leamed counsel appearmg for the respondents/State submits thaf the representation of fhe petitioner has been decided ia accordaace wifh law after affordiag opportuxiity of hearing to fhe petitioner. 7. I have heard leamed counsel appearmg for the pailies, perused fhe pleadiags aad dociunents appended ftiereto. 8, It is evident fhat fhe representation of the petitioner was decided on 21.8.2009. After a period of about am montiis ftie petitioner has fiiled this petition on 18.2,2010, chaUenging the traasfer order dated 30.6.2009. There is no challenge to fhe itnpugned order on any permissible legal grounds, warrsuitmg interference wifh fhe impugned order. 9. It is weU-settled piiaciple oflaw fhat transfer is an mcidenee of sendce aad it is for fhe eiGiployer to decide susto where a particular ofiGicer/eiiiplQyee be posted, keepiag ia view piibUc iaterest as weU as adniiaistrative exigency. This Court has Uxnited jurisdiction to mterfere with the torcmsfer matter, except ia fhe cases of proved nialafide, non-coxapetence of authoxity passiag fhe traasfer order axid not beiag ia confonnity wifh fhe rules aiid regulations, The petitioner cannot be permitted to remaui at one place forcver. Under the provisions of seryice rules, eniployer has aU fhe powers to post aa employee at a particular place ia view of pubUc interest and admicdstrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. Sttate of Tamil JWadu €in<2 an.othcr2, Shilpi Bose (BSrs^ and otfccrs t>. Stafec <ifBtfa<y & another3, Union. of Jndta mut cmother ». Janwdhan Debanath Ss cuiofher3, Stete o/' M*P. cmd cmofher v* 11974 (4) SCC 3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 1'%^} 1 ";%iS^ E ^., "%J^ ';--^^ 10. 11. S^S.Kouny cmd athers4 aad MoftA JBasaad Ahmcidl v. Sbate ofU.P.&Others^). The Supreme Court ia Airportos Authortty of ladia v. Rajeev Rataai Paadey & Others6, held ftiat <CIn a matter oftmiisfer ofa goveniDient exuiployee, scope ofjudicial review is llmited and fhe High Court would riot iaterfere with aa order of traasfer lightiy, be it at intenm stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute fheir own decision ia fhe matter of tiransfer." For fhe reasons as afore-stated, fhe petition is disioissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Thakur 4 (1995) 3 SCC 270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337