IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3 igof 2008 ”T§ Koshley, PETITIONER: S/o Noor DasKoshley, Aged about 58 years, Occupation Service, Presently posted as Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Raigarh, R/o Quarter No.F—1, Irrigation Colony, South Chakradhar‘Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, v Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /. Engineer-in—Chief, ( Water Resources Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur C.G.) / Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Raigarh (C.G.) / Shri Damodar Mishra, S/o Not known to the petitioner Occupation Service, Working as Assistan Engineer in the Water» Resources Department of the State of Chhattisgarh, Presently posted as Sub Divisionai Officer, Mini Mata Bango Dam, Sub Division No.5, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: t CONSTITUTION WRIT PETITION OF INDIA UNDER FOR ARTICLE I 226/227 OF THE ‘—;\\\~._ WRIT MANDAMUS, OF'LIKE , CERTIORARI NATURE ’AND/OR , ANY THE OTHER NATURE SUITABLE ' OF C53 WRIT/WRITS DIRECTIONS ETC. SSUANCE IN OF APPROPRIATE K 02/ W HIGH CGURT 8F CHHA??§SGARH '13? Ei‘LAlSSPLiR $ing§a Beach :VHnn’mE My. Justice $¥i$ir¢ker Eiwaiiar Wiii Pemmn §$§ Na. 3?35? Gf Hmg Advacai‘e far ihe pet§timer. Mr. YAS. Thakur, Dy. Advocate Geherai with Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panei Lawyer farihe Siatair-aspandenis— va ‘1 m 3. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza; counsel f0? respondent No. 4. WRIT PETIWON UNDER ARWaLE 22$ OF ?H£ cowsm' "Tm! mt wax}. ORDE§ 11!: (17 0HnQ\ \ 1v.v; ,Lvvu/ u I HUB! U! With the conseni of the parties; the matter is heard finaw Chailenge in the insiant writ petiiion is to the order datzad 7.7.2OD8 (Annexure—P-1) passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby ihe peiétioner Whe is working on the post of Executive Engineer in the Waier Reeourcee {)epar’tmeni has been ‘iransferreci from Raigarh te Béiaspur and by ihe same ofder respondent Noe 4 has been irans’r’erred from Shekii ‘ie Raigei‘h. Counsei for the petitioner submits that order impugned has been issued. male fidely just to accommodate respondent No. It. Another ground of the petitioner is that he is being subgected to frequent trae’ster. Lastly he submits that oniy 18 months are iett for the retiremeet of the petttioner and. therefore. the order impugned deeerves to be quashed. He turther submits that number of posts are tying vacarrt at Ratgerh aod therefore. the respondent No. 4 ooutd have been geosted against any such vecent post. Learned‘eouneei tor the State submits that in the present get-ace eff posting ie. Reigarh the petitioeer ts tivorktng siege 2&1, ‘i .2GO6 and es the order has; beeri ’passed in. the admintetretive exigeney. the gettttener Vr r . PE‘éTHQNER TS. Kssmey Vgrsgs RESPONDENYS State of Chhatiisgam 8: Qihers. ;\O> cannct chailenge the same. ii has been further submitted by the Siate ceunsei that no specific aiiegations in respect of male ffde have been aHeged and. therefore; mereiy memioning in the petition that tranefer order has been iseued with mala fide inteniien wiii net heip the petiticmer, He alsa submits that, petitioner is not a victim of frequent transfer anti reepondent NOV 4 has been poeted in piece of the petittoner in the administrative exigency. Smt. Mirza; counsei for reepondent NOV 4 submits that after issuance of the impugned order dated 77,2i308 respondent Not, 4 was relieved from Shakti on 87.2008 and his position is very awkwam‘ and in tact he is nowhere. She further submits that transter order cannot be interfered under the settied iaw. l have heard counsei for the parties at iength, The order imhughed dated 17.2008 has been issued in respect oi twc oersons and therefore it cannot be said that the order impugned has been issued gust to accommodate the respondent No. 4. So tar as the aliegation of mega fieo' is concerned. in the entire petition there is no specific aiiegations against any one alieging maia tide and therefore this ground is not avaiiabie to the petitioner. Ground of frequent transfer is aiso not aveiiahie to the oetitioner because admittediy petitioner is working at Raigarh since 20.11.2006. Transfer order has been issued in the administrative exigenoy and therefore the same cannot he interfered by this court. Accordingly. the petition being without substance is dismissed. Sd/~ Pritinker Biwaker Judge DI— ‘i.s “-1