•PFB,s:NCt F ,(.-i.;^^ c^-1^^__ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ^ AT BILASPUR W.P. (Sl N0. O'L /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS N^g? <x^t£^--" ^'^fe^^^" \\c•^¥^_l. ^^.^' Smt. Manorama Toppo, W/o Shri Kerobin Minz, aged about 25 years, Occupation- Supervisor, I.C.D.S. posted at Bagicha, Distt.-Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary Women and Child Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner, Women and Child Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector, Jashpur Distt. - Jashpur (C.G.) 4. Project Officer, Ekikrit Bal Vikash Pariyojana, Bagicha, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226^0F_THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (Sl:- As per fhe cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT (Sl:- As per the cause title. BiBd ^ PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B!LASPUR WR!T PET!T!ON_fSlNQ,4402 OF 2011 Smt. Manorama TOODO Versus State of ChhatSisgarh & Others {Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Conststution of 'ndia'] Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri K.N.Nande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. (Passed on this 08 ' day of August, 2011} ChaHenge in this petition is to the order dateci 12.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Coiiector, Jashpur, whereby the petitioner working as Supervisor in the office of integrated Child Development Scheme at Baaicha. has been transferred to Integrated Chiid Deveiopment Scheme, Manora. on adminisfrative grounds. Shri Barik, iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that 14 posts of Supervisor are sanctioned at Bagicha, but only 9 posts are filled up and there are sti!l 5 posts iying vacant, which require to be f'lled up by the auihority, but without any administrative exigency the transfer order has been 'ssued. Shri Barik further submits that the parents of the petitioner are under treatment at District Hospitai Sagicha, which may not be avaiiable in the n&w place of posting. Apart from this there Is no other admissibte legai ground such as. iack of competence of the officer, who has passed the transfer order and vioiation ofstatutory rules and regulations. it is not t'ne concern of the employee asto whether five posts are stil! lying vacant when in other place there may not be even one officer Supen/isor. it is for the administratlon to post the officers keeping in view the adminlstrative reauirement. On this ground. no interference is vrarranted with regard to treatmentof the parents of the petitioner te concerned. However, the petitloner is at iiberty to make a representation to the authorities concerned, ifso advised. 5e that as it may, it is a trite iaw that transfer/postlng is an incidence of service. The Court shoutd not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is maiice, Infringement of siatutory ruies 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 administratlve exiaencv. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an smpioyee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tsm'i Nw!u and another, Shiipi Boss (Mrs.j and ot'ners v. Stete of Bihar & anothei2, State of M.P. and snather v. S.S.Kourv anct others , Mohd. Maasod Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Offwrs4 Chief Commercial Manager, Soyft Cenk'-a! Railway, SecL'nderabad & Others v. G.Ratnam & Others an<S Airpoite Authorlty Qflndia y. Rsjeev Raten Psndsy & Others^. Applying the weii-settled principles of iaw to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. AccordingSy, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashck '•!0,74(4', SCC 3 2(1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4(2007i8SCC-!50 5 ;»».nn-7\o 0^'^ l<<-> (2007) 8 SCC 212 (200S)8SCC337