v: r SSngle Ben»h <1 \^=^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION fS) N0. S\^5 QF 2009 PETITIONER. \>-^ ^0*- ^(^'•••' ^ .. ^!' ^^^'.- ^:^y< ..;^^'r V' • K*' ^-•- RESPONDENT ^^ls^. b' ./ '" ~!~~ - '"^•-\, '// 'l'%\ '£,^^")M 7-^ i ^ / .^ Santosh Kumar Chouhan, aged about 42 Years, S/o Shri Ramsahay Chouhan, Occupation- Presently Workmg as Non Medical Assistence (N.M.A.). Community Health Centre, Churiya District- Rajnandgaoa (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Mmistry of Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The ChiefMedical andHealth OfBcer, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER URTICALE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. Particulars of the Petitioner :-L 6ri B-* Bi'S ^f ^- -\') HIGH_COURT OECHHATnSGARILAJ_B_ILASPUR WMT PETITION (S) No. 5175 of2009 PETmONER RESPONDENTS Santosh Kumar Chouhan. VERSUS The State ofChhattisgarh & another. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Goverament Advocate forthe State/respondents. ORDERCORAL) (Passedon 11th dayof September, 2009) By Ihis petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 30 June, 2009 (Annexure P/8) passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Community Health Centre, Chhuriya, Rajnandgaon to Community Health Centre, Mohla, Rainandgaon. Shri Thakur, leamed counsel appearing for Ifae petitioner submits that the petitioner and his spouse, both are govemment servants and at present, posted at the same place, and by the impugied transfer order, their family life would be disturbed. Shri Thakur furfher submits that from the year 2004 to 2009, the petitioner has been transferred four times and this comes within fhe purview of'^requent transfers . •;"^ //"":si jjj 11 \v%^/' s- 3. Both the above contentions offhe petitioner are noticed to be rejected as it is well-settled principle oflaw that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ofBcer/employee be posted, keeping in view public iirterest as well as admimstrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in eonfonnity with the rules and regulations. (See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Others^ asidMohd. FirozKhan v. State ofC.G. & Otherf). 4. Even otherwise, fhere is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warrantine interference wilfa the unpugnedtransfer order. 5. For the reasons as abovestated, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit ^(2004) 12 5CC 299 2 2008 (2) CGLJ 143