^-^7- ^ (Pefitioa nader Aiticle 326/327 of tli'e Constitntioa of la / ..••'. .^ .^yy ^y/^' ^'"" ?»?- i^l Raj Kumar Sharma, aged abput 47 yrs S/o Shri Bhaiyalal Sharma, at present working as Forest Guard, Alarwahi Forest pivision, Bilaspur, C.G. State ofChhattisgarh, through the SecTetary, Forest Department , D.K.S. Bhawan; Raipii? (C.G.,1 Tlie» Chie! Conservaxor of Forsst, (Administration) State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distt.Raipur (C.G.l Conservator Departtnent, C.G. of Foi-est, Forest lilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, /4l Divisional Forest C'ffi.cer, F'orest Division, Marwahi; C.G. ^5) Divisional Forest Offi.cer, Bilaspur, Fore.st Dwision Bilaspur, C.G. 2270FTHE ••ji-a.&.fs. TS/'KK L/:0l •T*: ^I") @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.4607 of 2005 PetiUoner : RajKumar Sharma Versus Respondents : StateofChhattisgarhandothers SB Hon'ble Shri SaUsh K.Aanihotri. J. Present: Mr. Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the p*'tioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lEnwyer for the respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this27 dayof February, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 31.08.05 (P/1), whereunder ttie petitioner, white workingas Forest Guard in Gourela Range Gummatola Area, Marwahi, Forest Cirele, Pendra Road, was transferred to Lormi Range, Forest Cirete, Bilaspur. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits Uiat the petitioner is Ctass-111 employee. Under the pollcy of the State Govemment, if spouse of an employee is also working in government department, then the transfer order should be made in such a viay -» asto accommodate both employees at one place as far as possibte. 3. This Court vide interim order dated 26.9.2005 has stayed ttie dfect and operation of the impugned orderdated 31.08,05 (R/1)tiltthenext date of hearing. The pelitioner, by virtue of the staygranted by this Court, has remained at the original place of posUng. lli i.wU iiiBdii it»(44*ti">t>i+~"r is-'-^T ^-?SQn4t"tBK^Kl?SUE^3Cq S ' :^ •-,...-^.:.,^.^!^^sS¥sSsswsisse!as»^^ ,'-^-flVt^\-T^^^ •^^-^'\^;-^~^f^Vvi-'^t--^-1' Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner ftirther submits that liberty be granted to the petitioner to make an apptication before the competent authority in case transfer order is passed in public interest. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence ofservice and it is for the emptoyer to decide as to wtiere a particular officer/employee be posted keepingin view pubtic interest as wetl as administraSve exigency. This Court has lim'rted iurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and this CourtGan interfer®onty in the case of proved malafide, non-competence oTauthortty passing the transfer order and transfer order ncrt being in conformity with the mles and regulations. In view of the foregoing, this writ petition is disposed ofwith a direcUon to the respondents/Stat®to consider the application of the (^titioner, in accordance with law. In the meantim®,the petifener maynot be disturbed during academic session till 30 April, 2007. No order as to costs. ———~ SatishK.Agnihotri l Judge fi)v i '••'•-s'-^x ^l ' Bi