f , 1 G O (^~> - 'S ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT - BILASPUR [C.G)^ WRIT PETITION fSV N0. ^ f ^ OF2011fS.BI PETITION^R JANAK LAL SORI,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/0 SHRI RAM DHAR SORI, WORKING.AS - UPPER CLASS TEACHER, ,^V^^-^ .-" R/o' VILLAGE BAMHANI, TAHSIL ^^\'.^'.'¥~^.-v' .--•"' \ KONDAGAON, DISTRICT - BASTAR (C. G.) ^y'^-^y^^ ^^"' ...-••"\x ' VERSUS ' .^-"' RESPONDENTS : ^ STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH -THE COLLECTOR COLLECTOR OFFICE, JAGDALPUR DISTRICT BASTAR (C.G.) Writ Petition under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. HIGH COITRT OF CHHA'mSCTARH AT Bll ASPDR WRIT PETmON ($} No. 6185 of2011 TITIOT: DENTS State ofChhattisearh & Others. wim' pETrnoN UNDER ARIICLE 226 OF THE CONS'nTUTIQNPF IND1A isent: Shri P.K.Tuisyan, Advocate tbr the petitoiner. Shri Ajit Siiigh, Pane! Lawyer &r the State/rsspondent. ORBER (ORAI-'i (Passed ou 17s1 day ofOctober, 2011) 1. Challenae ia this petition is to the order dated 15.07,2011 (Amiexiire P/l') wfaerebv. the oetitioner. workine as Uooer Division Teacher at Middle School, Hanewa, Block Kondaeaon, ha-s been transferred to Middle School Sedwa. BIock Darbha. on admmistrative arounds. 2. Sfari Tulsyan, leamed counsel appearing fbr tae petition<?r si the parenS.s oflhe petitionsr are old aged andthey oft.en rema.in iSl and require frequent medical treatmeiit.. He fiirther submits that the children of the petitioner are stadying at Kondaga.on, aad if the impugned transfer order is givea effect to, their stiidies ahaU be affect.ed. It is next. eoDtended that fhere are only two teachers at Middle School, Hanewa and ifthe petitioaer is traasfen''ed, there will be onlv one teacher left to look aft.er the whole scbool. Shri Tulsvan fiirther submits Ihat the oetitioner has not comoleted 3 vears of service 'at his present place of post.ing, thus, under the Iransfer rolicy datsd 13.06.2011, the transfer is bad and deserves to be quashed. .3. The petitioner has not challenged the impu^ied order on any other Dermissible legal grouad i.e. mala fide, violation ofanv statiitory nries or regiilatioas or lack of eompet.eace of the of&cer, passing the impugned order. So far as complet.ioa of3 vea.rs at his present piace is concemed, the traiwfer nolicv dated 13.06.2011 provides for 2 Vi vears. and not 3 vears. Further. the sa.id orovisioa is not mandaton''. birt discretionarv as clause 4(1) ofthe transfer oolicv st.ates that an >! /•-' :1:.-S?'' Anut emplovee may be trattsferred ifhe faas completed 2 % vea.rs ofservice at one ola.ce but the same does not orohibit from transfemae an emolovee before eomoletion of 2 Vi veans of service at oae olace. Further. the enevance of the netitioner that oalv one teacher will be left afi.er transfer of tfae oetitioner. it is for the State CTOvermnent to post an eraployee at a particiilar place in such a manner so tfaat the mav not be hamoered. 4. It is well-settled that transfer is an ineidenee of serviee and it is for the emolover to decide ast.o where a oarticular ofEcer/emolovee be oost.ed- keeping in view public interest as weil as administrative exigeney. This Court faas limited iurisdiction t.o interfere with the Iransfer matffir except in the cases ofproved malafl.de, non-competence ofauthority pa-ssing the traasfer order and not being in confonnity with the rales regiilations. The petitioner/employee cannot be penaitied to remain at. one place forever. Uader the provisioiis of service niles, emolover has a.11 Ihe nowers t.o oost. an emnlovee at a. oarticular nlace ia view of public interest and administrative exigency. (8ee E.P.Royappa v. State of Taw.ilNadii cmd anothe^, Union oflndia and "yf'r^fJ^^''s' "t? 7/???/??'<??T/7y? 7**)^^/7?t/7^t ./?'' ^'ysf^t^syy^ ^f.^f^' /^'f^.'f P /TV!'^ /Tf/i^thff'f w-/i-^>'!,fi^'i Vf v W.Jivf.S v»i-tE,»7*j^&U^if il^if t •^- Ui/ii^tf S^f , fc/Svt4v :^J -i.y^.A • ^*?fvi; fc*? »l/E.fsa/f 17 .<t -^*. S./M.f?'/^? /"'??/? r^tl^^y^ <ir*^1 ]i..4nlf/^ ^.4^fr~i^^ /??tT'*?/?/^ i? ^.t^t^ nfJJ f'f f^'.t^.j.'^i^fCAj wtf' •^ifi'ia- l/Aj'iS/.; s3 <bU.AU JLi-'^v-/tv». A>-A ».»uii/wr»'t^t-Jt.r'f; tti-tSrt V. i^fiV^fiv L/f •t^-.j[ . & Others4). 5. In view ofthe above. the oetition is devoid ofmerit and is accordmelv dismissed. ri' ' !. . o SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge