IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONfS-) N0. ^^) OF2011 PETITIONER: .^^) ^%?"<v ^,.^^ '..^'\^ ^".-.t^- A ^-K ' .• A", ' '.-•^ .>'° R. Y. Tiwari, Aged About- 53 Years, S/o- Shri R.S. Tiwari, Occupation- Service-Working as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Rajanandgaon, R/o- Sector No.2, Road No.8, Professor Colony, Raipur (C.G.) ..s? ^ VERSUS RESPONDENT(S): / 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture Rajanandgaon (C.G.) 4-G.D.Tiwari, S/o- (Not Known fo the petitioner ), Aged About-52 Years, Working as Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Rajanandgaon (C.G.) WRn'_PETITION UNDER ARnCLE 226 OF_THE CONSTITUTION QF INDm, DETAILS OF THE PETmON ^ "- ^^•-i^^^S^^S^Ks^a^^^^'.M^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^SS'^k. :.<«"-•»»! aehck HlGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH : BiLASPUR WRJT PETJTSON (S) N0. 4478 OF 2011 1> PETiTiO?\SER RESPONDENTS R. Y. Tiwari Versus State of Chhattisgarh & 3. (Writ Petition urider Article 226 of the Constltution of Singie Bench : Hon'b!e S.hri Satish K. Agnihotri,, Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao. Govt. Advocate for ihe State. ia) ORDEi (Passed on fhls 10 day of August, 2011 ) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that by the transfsr poiicy dated 13.06.2011, there has been a complete ban on transfer of C!ass-l & Ciass-li officers; thus, the impugned order is vitiated, as the petitjoner is Class-li officer being Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, though it is wrongiy written as Assistant Director, /^ricuiture. Shri Sao, tearned State counsei produces a circuiar dated 08.08.2011, which ciarifies the eariler cireuiar dated 13.06.2011, wherein, it has been mads ciear that during the period of ban on transfer, in cases, where it is administrafively required, the transfer can be made in coordination wlih the Chtef Minister. On psrusa! of the order dated 8.8.2011, it is found that the transfer order has been made in coordination with the coiiipetent authority, t'nus, there is no illegaiity or irreguiarity in the impugned transfer $e that as ii may, it is a trite iaw ihat transfer/posting is an incidence of servlce. The Court shouid not inSerfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infrlngement of statutory ruies and reguistions. In the case on hand, the petitioner has faited to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The empioyee may be posted anywhere ai the insiance of ihe empioyer in public interest and administrative exigency. Thus, ihe impugned order warrants no Interference. Accordincsiv. the writ Detiti'on is dismissed. No order asto costs. Judge