^z .^ ^^ if^l'^. ^ •^BSliiyt'S; > IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P.fSlNo. (-(OS,1 /2011 PETITIONER ^^ -.***'!- Y^*'*' .** ^^y ^^^•^v^ •^^ ^yy '^••-"" RESPONDENTS Jender Tirkey, S/o. Shri Benjamin Tirkey, aged about 53 year, working as Principle I.T.1., Raigarh, R/o. Near D.I.C. Raigarh tC.G.) VERSUS J^:' (1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Technical Education, Man Power • and Planning Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Director, Employment and Training, Woinen Polytechnic Campus, Bairan Baza.ar, Raipur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4081 OF 2011 PETITIONER Jender Tirkey Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri AJit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 28th day of July, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel forthe parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 14-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from ITI, Raigarh to ITI Dondilohara, District Durg. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially transferred by order dated 25-9-2009 (Annexure - P/3), from ITI, Raigarh to ITI Dondilohara, District Durg, on administrative ground. The said order could not be given effect to, as the petitioner was not released. By the impugned order dated 14-7-2011 the same has been reiterated referring the same as fresh order, though there is a reference of earlier order dated 25-9-2009. Shri Koshy further submits that the order was passed only to avoid restriction on transfer of class 1 & II officers as per the transfer policy for the year 2011-12 dated 13-6-2011 (Annexure - P/4). Learned counsel submits that this amounts to ma/a fide exercise of power. 4. Be that as it may, even if the latest impugned order is not passed, the State authorities could have very well asked the petitioner to comply with the order dated 25-9-2009, as it is nowhere provided .that if the order is not complied with within a particular period, the same becomes infructuous. On reiteration of the same, it cannot be held that this was with the purpose of defeating clause 1 of the transfer policy. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner. 1 7. It is further well settled that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nacfu and another , Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. Sfate of Bihar & another^, Sfate of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. StateofU.P. & Others4 Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge