HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH : BILASPUR NR” PET§TION (S) NO. 1358 GF 3909 PETITIONER Jeewan La: Meshram, S/o Shri K.B. Meshram, aged 54 years, Non Medical Supervisar (Leprosy), (CM! Dispensary Khursipar), Tah. & District Burg (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. The State Govt. of C.G.. through the Secretary, Public Health Depth D.K.S‘ Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Directar af Pubiic Health (Services). DKS Bhawan Campusi Raipur. 3. Chief Medical Ofhcer. Burg (CG). (Writ petitien under Article 226 of the Constitution ef india) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present :- Shri Somkant Verma, counset for the petitiener. Shri MRS. Bhatia, Dy. Gevt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this $m day of March, 2009 ) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order 12-6-2008 (Annexure-PH) by which he has been transferred from Durg to Dantewada. 2) Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.«would submit that the impugned order was passed not on account of administrative exigency, but due to male tide exercise of power. The petitioner has already worked in a naxalite affected area and again by the impugned transferydeehe. has been transferred to Dantewada, which is not sustainable. The same has been passed during mid academic session, which is against the transfer policy. 3) l have heard learned counsei appearing for the parties. perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The impugned order has been passed on 12-6-2008. The petitioner is chailenging the same after lapse of about 9 months. 4) it is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular ofticerl employee be posted, keeping in View public interest as welt as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases 0f proved mafa fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rutes and regulations. 5) The courts or tribunats, which are appellate authorities should refrain from considering the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. (See State of UP. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal‘. 6) The Hon'bte Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and othersz summed up the scope of interference in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as under : ‘7. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by ’ Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy v. Union of indie, Nationai Hydroeiectrlc Power Corpn. Ltd. V. Shri Bhagwan, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal. Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court. the Allahabad High Court in Vg'iay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Onkar Nath Tiwan‘ v. Chief Engineer, Minor irringatr‘on Deptt. has held that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the court finds that either the order ls male tide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders. were not competent to pass the orders.” 7) ln View of the foregoing, the writ petition is .liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 8) Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri 1 Z (2904) 11 scc 402 (200?) 8 soc 150