. C^^^] -1-  In the Honble Hish Court of Chhattissarh at Bilaspure fC.G.) .2009 Petitioner W.P. (S)No.....^.3.'27?-.^. Ashok Kumar Thakur, aged 42 years Son of Shri Anand Singh Thakur, Head Consable (T.C.) No. 140. Supermtendant ofPolice (Tele Com) Bhilai, Sector -6, Bhilainagar. Distt Durg Versus A ^y') «^'^y ^••" ^••^ ^••."•"' Respondents ............. 1. State Govt of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, Home Department Mmistry, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur 2. Assistant Inspector General ofPolice (Telecom), Police Dur Sanchar, Bhilai 32 Bunglow, Bhilai District Durg (CG) 3. Superintendent ofPolice (Tele com), Sector VI, In front ofGaitri Mandir, Sector VI, Bhilai nagar^Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^ Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitytion of India for Issuance of writ of Mandamus/Direction or anv other appropriate writ. $y ••''.^\^' -J....- ,^^^^s HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDBNTS Writ Petition (8) No. 5322 of2009 Ashok Kum.ar Thakur VERSUS State Govt, of Chhattisgarh & ofliers WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agaihotri, J.) Shri Som.kaat Verma, Advocate for fhe petitiouer. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel La^vyer for the respondents. O RD B R (Oral) (Passed oa this 4th day ofJaauary, 2010) Heard. 1. The petitioner has liled this petition challengmg tih.e order dated 5.9.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by fhe respondent No.2, whereby the earMer order dated 10.8.2009 was caacelled. 2, Indisputable brief facts, ta nutshell, are fhat by order dated 4.5,2007 (Annexure R/2) the petitioner, Head Constable No. 146 was posted in the office ofTelecom Center, Kanker. On the note-sheet dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure R/4) the petitioner's teinporary attachiaent to Bhilai office was peiTaitted by the higher autliority. However, accordiag to the respondents, by some clerical mistake ia the order dated 10,8.2009 (Annexure R/7) it was meutioned fhat fhe petitioner was posted to BhUai until furtlier orders. When tlie above inistake was noticed by the higher officers, tlie same was rectified by the ioipugned order dated 5.9.2009 (Annexure P/ 1). 3. Leamed counsel appearing for tlie petitioner subniits fhat ia corapliaiice ofthe order dated 10.8,2009 fhe petitioner jonied at Bhilai ou 28.8.2009. The daughters of the petitiouer are studyiag at BhUai. The impugned order has been issued witliout aiiy show cause notice or opportunity of hearing aad tlie executed traiisfer order caanot be caacelled. @ [„ _ 4. LeaiTied couusel appearmg for the respondents/State subniits tliat the petitioner has not been transferred, nierely fhe postiiig order has been cao.celled by tlie iaipugned order. He furtlier submits, siace the petitioner is veiy rauch ititerested to perform his duties at BhUai, he had made efforts for his postmg to Bhflai aiid it is apparent that on fhe efforts of tlie petitioner, the wrong posting order could be passed. It is further submitted that by order dated 5.9.2009 (Aunexure P/8), Ms Anaad Tasia, Soobedar (Aa)/Head Clerk, Police Telecoin, Bhilai Zoue was puuished for passiag the order dated 10.8.2009, contraiy to the note sheet, in favour of fhe petitiouer aad a fiiie of Rs. 500/- was imposed zipon her. 5. I have heard leained counsel appeariag for fhe parties, perused the pleadio.gs aiid docunients appended thereto. 6. It is apparent froni fhe retura filed by fhe respondents/State that by order dated 11.4.2007 fhe petitioner was pronxoted to fhe post of Head Constable and fhereafter he was posted to Kaiiker by order dated 4.5,2007. Thus, the actual place of posting oftiie petitioner was Kaiiker. By uote-sheet/order dated 4.8.2009, on the efforts offhe petitioner, he could be attached teniporanly ia tlie office at BhUai. Thereafter, io. sequence ofthe note-sheet dated 4.8.2009 the orderdated 10.8.2009 (Annexure R/7) was passed for the postiiig of tiie petitioner at Bhilai, but iti this order, accordiag to the respondents, due to clerical niistake itistead of 'teinporarily^ 'until fiulher orders' has beeu written, When fhis laistake was noticed, fhe order dated 10.8.2009 was can.celled by fhe mipugned order dated 5.9.2009 (Annexure P/l). 7. In view of the foregoiag, no case for iaterference is waiTaated. Even otiienvise, it is well-setfled principle oflaw that traasfer is an uicidence of service aad it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/eniployee be posted, keeping ia view pubMc taterest as weU as administorative exigency. This Court has Imiited jurisdiction to uiterfere wifh flie traasfer matter, except in tlie cases of proved nialaiide, non-competence of 9. 10. aufhority passiag the tt'aiisfer order and not being ui conformity wifh tiie rules and regulations. The petitioner caanot be permitted to reinam at oue place forever. Under tfie provisions of ser^ice niles, eniployer has aU fhe powers to post aa einployee at a particular place ia view of public iaterest aiid admmistrative exigency, (See E.P.Rayesppa v. State of Tcmdl Ncsdu and anQther1^ Shilpi Bese (Ettrs^ cmd others v^ State of Biheur & another2, Union ©fJndia and another ly. Janardhcm Debcsnath & an^ther3^ State of M.P. cmjd another ^ S.Q.Keur^ and ^thers4 and JMfohd. Mdsood Ahmxsd w. State ofU.P. <fe Other^). 8. The Supreme Court m Airports Authority of Iiadia v, Rajeev Ratan Paaadey & Others6, held that "In a matter of trao.sfer of a goveniinent einployee, scope ofjudicial review is limiited aiid the High Court would not interfere with au order of traiisfer Ughtly, be it at iatermi stage or fiaal hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute fheu' own decision iii the matter of trausfer." There is no challenge to fhe impugned order on any otlier permissible legal grounds as afore-stated, waa'antiag iaterference with the iinpugned order. For fhe reasons as afore-stated, the petition is dismissed. The intenm order dated 17.9.2009 is vacated. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4 (1995) 3 SCC 270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337 .