WIW/ Singk agngh IN THE HIGH COURT OF CIEIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. s N0?3>%F32009 ‘ PETITIONER : Mahru Ram Mandavi, S/o Late Shri Surjuram Mandavi, Aged about 43 years, R/o QtNo‘.8B, Street No.45, Secu'on—IO, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Home (Police), DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Director General of Police, Headquarters, Raipur, Raipur (CG) Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Distt. 4. Superintendent of Police, Distt. Durg (CG) 5. Superintendent of Police, District Rajnandgaon (CG) WW OF INDIA é HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petithm is) No 2878 of 2009 FETITEONER : Mahru Ram Mandavi VERSUS ‘ State of Chhattisgarh 35 others msgoggmgg‘sW WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE " 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA aw: Hon’bke My. satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Ms Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for th€ petitioner. Shli Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. ’ ORDERmxan (Passed on this 22nd day of October, 2009) Heard. l. The petifioner has med this petition challenging the order dated 13.6.2009 (Annexure P/ 1), passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traiiic) at Durg to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Operation) at Rajnandgaon. 2. Ms Fouzia Mirza, leained counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an officer holding the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic) at Durg carrying junior pay scale i.e. Rs. 8,000 - 13,500. By the impugned order dated 13.6.2009 (Annexure P/ l) the petitioner has been transferred to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Operation) at Rajnandgaon which is meant for an othcer in senior grade, carrying pay scale of Rs. 10,000 — 15,200. Thus, the order is vitiated on the ground that the officer at lower pay scale cannot be posted at a post which is meant for the oiiicer of senior grade. Learned counsel further t f I submits that the post of Deputy Supen'ntendent of Police (Operation) is a promotional post in senior pay scale; 3. Shri Yashwant Singh Thékur, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the State Govemment has sanctioned 12 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Operatioh) at Jagdalpur, Dantewada, Kauker, Bijapur, Narayanpur, Surguja, Surajpur, Balrampur, Korea, Kabirdham, Rajnandgaon, Jashpur and Raipur and as such there is a post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Operation), available at Rajnandgaon. Learned counsel further submits that may be the post of Deputy Supen'utendent of Police (Operation) at Rajnandgaon is meant for the othcer in senior pay scale, however, it cannot be held as bad if a Deputy Superintendent of Police ofjunior grade is posted against the said post. The posting has been done for want of availability of the officers in senior grade: 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the documents appended thereto, it is not a case wherein there is an allegation of malafide or breach of prevalent rules and regulations or the officer passing the order is not competent to pass the order. It is for the employer to post the petitioner looking to public interest and administrative exigency. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not prejudiced by his posting as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Operation), at Rajnandgaon, even if the post is meant for the ofticer in senior grade. 5. It is well—settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ofhcer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative \ K t exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved malaflde, non—competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an ohicer/ employee at a particular place in View of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tami! Nada and another1, Shilpi Bose {Mrs} and others v. State of Bihar & anotheyg, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anotherg, Sta'te of MP. and another v. S.S.Kouru and oihers" and Mohd Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Oihers5). 6. There is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warranting interference with the impugned transfer order. 7. For the reasons as afore—stated, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. ‘> ' sw— lTa—i 1 $atish K. Agnihotri ’3 Judge Thakur l 2 . 1974 (4) soc 3 (1991) Supp 2 sec 659 J (2004) 4 scc 245 ‘ 4 5 (1995) 3 sec 270 (2007) '8 soc 150 I