^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl No. /^ PETITIONER ..-•yf c^y. ^ ,^.< V-" ^.w^ '^^y >-''^< \>" ^•'.^'•0-'' ^'.^- ^y^ <•• ' ,s>--- RESPONDBNTS 9r /2010 Jeevan Lal Yadav S/o Late Shri C.L. Yadav, aged about ?arwaU 47 years R/q4Police Station ^ Marwahi, District Bilaspur working as Assistant Grade-3, BIock Education Officer, Tribal Block Marwahi, Dista-ict Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS / State of Chhattisgarh through Depuly Secretary Adhim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C,.G.) /^ 2. State of Chhattisarh through Secretary General Administa-ation Department, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 3. Assistant Commissioner Collector Office (Tribal Development) Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OFINDIA r, ^° HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ PeUUon (Sl No. 186 of2010 Jevan. Lal Yadav VERSU8 State of Chhatdsgarh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE__226. OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Paael Lafryei for the respondents. O RD E R (Orali (Passed oa this 14*b day ofJaauary, 2010) Heard. 1. The petitiouer has filed fhis petition chaUengiag fhe order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner (Assistaut Grade -III) has been transferred froin the of&ce of the Block Education Officer, Marwahi, District - Bilaspur to High School Songara, Block - Pratappur, Distnct Surguja and fhe order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure P/4), whereby the petitioner has beeit directed to joia the transferred place of postiag as per fhe traasfer order dated 30.6.2009. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner subinits fhat the petitioner, while working on the post of Assistant Grade-III was traasferred by the unpugned order dated 30.6.2009 (Aruiexure P/2). Before fhe petitioner could be relieved to joia the new place ofposting, by order dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure P/3) it was directed that fhe petitioner should not be reUeved froin Manvahi till a new iacuinbent joias the duty. Although, no incunibent has joiaed at Marwahi, ui place ofthe petitioner, but by fhe ixnpugned order dated 21.12.2009 fhe Block Education Officer, Marwalu has been directed to relieve fhe petitioner, enablmg him to join at the tFansferred place of postiag as per the traasfer order dated 30.6.2009. w" 7. The Special Leave to Appeal Civil No. 18773/2005 (Shyamlal Chaudhari Vs. State of Chliattisgarh & ofhers), ffled against the order ui Aalkh Kuinar Devta (supra) was dismissed on 23.7.2007. 8. A petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18773/2005 (Shyamlal Chaudhan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers), filed against the order ia Aalekh Kumar Devta (supra) was dismissed on 23.7.2007. 9. The petitioner has iniserably fafled to establish that the service career of the petitioner wotild be prejudiced by the impugned transfer. No inaterial has been produced ia support of fhe contention of the petitioner that if the petitioner is trausferred his seruority wiU be aifected. Thus, the contention is rejected for want of inaterial. 10. In view ofthe foregoiag, ia the opinion ofthis Court, no case for interfereuce is warranted. Even otherwise, it is weU-settled principle of law fhat transfer is au iacidence of service and it is for the eiaployer to decide asto where a particular of&cer/einployee be posted, keeping in view public interest as weU as adiniuistrative exigency. This Court has liuuted jurisdiction to iuterfere wiftl fhe trausfer niatter, except ia the cases ofproved uialafide, non-coiupetence of authorily passins the transfer order and not being in conformily wifh the rules and regulations. The petitioner cannot be pennitted to reniain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, eniployer has aU fhe powers to post aa einployee at a pardcular place ia view of public iaterest and adinuustrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappti v. State of Teunll Neidu tmd. tinotheT2, Shilpl Sose (ISrs.j cmd others v. Stecte ofBihar & another3, Dhion. of India and another v. Jem.cirdhan Detoem.ccth Ss another4, State of SS.P. cmd cmother v. S.S.Kouro emd others®aad Mohd. JKdsood Ahmcid w. Statc of P.P. & 2 1974 (4) SCC 3 3 (1991) Supp 2SCC 659 4 (2004) 4 SCC 245 5 (1995) 3 SCC 270 - ^y\ •'-S^SSK ?\ %^'^»B»<( '•^*?w Thakur 4 Otherse). The Supreme Court m Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey 85 Others7, held that "In. a matter of transfer of a govenuaent einployee, scope of judicial review is limited and fhe High Court would not uiterfere wifh au order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final heariiig. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in fhe luatter of transfer." 11. There is no chaUenge to fhe impugned order on aay other permissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warraatmg interference with the impugned order. 12. For fhe reasons as afore-stated, the petition is disniissed. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNMOTRI Judge 6 (2007) 8 SCC 150 7 (2009) 8 SCC 337