^c* HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAFBJLASPUR WritAppeaJ No.321 of 2009 APPELLANT: Petitioner RESPONDENTS: Present: Kishor Ram Nonha, son of Shri Bandhu Ram, aged about 41 years, Hostel Superintendent, Maanpur, District Sarguja (CG) Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of TribaS Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Vanvasi Sewa Mandal, Mandla (MP) The Collector (Tribal Welfare) Dlstrict Sarguja (CG) The Department Organizer, Madhya. Pradesh Vanvasi Sewa Mandai, Department Office, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) Head Master - Incharge, Madhya Pradesh Vanvasi Sewa IVSandai, Middie School - Maanpur, Tahsii - Samri, District Sarguja (CG) Shri Arun Shukia, Advocate for the appellant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate forthe State. Dlvjsion Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhtrendra Mlshra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDGIViENT (7-12-2009) Thjs writ appeai Is directed against the order dated 7th October, 2009 passed In WP(S) No.5751/2009 whereby the petition filed by the appeilant, who is • working as Hostel Superintendent, District Surguja, against his transfer order ^^^^ ^ 1•%. ^ '^ ^ ^^^^-": ^\ dated 14-6-2009 by which he has been transferred to Tribal Hostei, Rewati, District Surguja, has been dismissed. 2. The earlier pet'rtion fiied by the appeilant was disposed of by this Court wjth liberty to file representation withln 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The representatlon of the appeliant was considered and rejected vide order of Annexure-P/6 dated 16-9-2009. The petltion filed by the appeilant has been dismissed with an observation that 'transfer/posting of an employee is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as weiS as administrative exigency. Thi®Court has iimited jurisdictton to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved maia flde, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. (See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Versus Damodar Prasad Pandey & Others1)* 3. In view of the reasons assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the petltion, we do not find any substance in this appeal warrantlng interference. 4 In the result, the appeai is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dfsmissed. Barve Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge (2004)12 SCC 299