”(2) 6%? 1m// H N‘ BLE .B. Government High School, Barrir , Block Marwahi, District Bilaspur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE QON§TITUTION OF INDIA , 7,.., \ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. é 1S9 l 20Q9 (/Md. Samid Khan, S/o Late Shri M.F. Khan, Aged about 52 ’years,Post- Untrained Accountant, R/o Taiwapara, Baikuntpur, District Korea, C.G. PETITIONER: / VERSUS Through the Secretary, Tribai Welfare Department, Ministry, D.K.S. Building, Raipur, C.G. RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, fine Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, f f, Baikuntpur, District Korea, C.G. 3. The Principal, ) N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition [Si No. 6159 of 2009 Md. Samid Khan VERSUS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh 85 othsrs WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon‘ble Mr. Satish’ K. Agnihotri, J.) Shli Alok Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. 0 R D E R {On-all (Passed on this 4th day of January, 2010) Heard. 1. The petiiioner has $ed this petition challenging the order dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure P/ 1), passed on the representation of the petitioner. 2. Indisputable brief facts, in nutshell, are that by order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P/ 2) the petitioner, who was Working on the post of Accountant in the omce of the Assistant. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Koria, was transferred to the Govt. High School, Banir, Block ~ Marwahi, ’District — Bilaspur. Being aggrieved by the transfer order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (S) N. 4032/2009 With the main contention that the seniority of Accountant is being maintained at district wise whereas the petitioner has been transferred from one district to,'another district and on account of shifting of the petitioner, his seniority will adversely be anected. 3. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 3.8.2009 (Annexure P/4) with liberty to the petitioner 'to tile a' representation within ten days and the respondents were directed to consider and decide the same Within a period of three weeks. 4. By the impugned order dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure P/ 1) the - representation of the petitioner has been decided with the VA observation that by the transfer of the petitioner from Kon'a to Mamzahi, Bilaspur, his seniority will not be affected. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner still submits that by the transfer of the petitioner from one district to other district, his seniority would be aifected. He further reiterates that the transfer order has been passed in Violation of the transfer policy, the chlldren of the petitioner are studymg 1n college the mid sessmn transfer would adversely anect their studies the mother and mother—m‘hW of the pehttoner, aged about 75 and 80 years are residing with the petitioner and wife of the petitioner is suEen'ng from high blood pressure. Therefore, the transfer order dated 30.6.2009 may be set aside. . Learned counsel appearing for the respondents] State submits that by the order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P/ 2) as many as 25 Accountants were transferred from one district to other district. The representation of the petitioner has been considered and decided by the competent authority, in accordance with law, after anording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. There is no substance in the apprehension of the petitioner that due to his transfer from one district to other district, his seniority would be affected. The competent authority has specitically mentioned in the order dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure P/ l) that due to the transfer the seniority of the petitioner would not be aitected Thus nothing surv1ves 1n this petition for adjudicatlon . l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. . Having considered the facts situation, where apprehension of the petitioner that owning to his uansfer from one district to other district his seniority would be affected has already been claniied by the competent authority and as such no interference With the impugned order 1s warranted. . It is wellasettled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ofticeriemployee he posted, keeping in View public l K t \ (4%? I; interest as Well as administrative exigency. This Court has limitad jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except [in th€ cases of proved malafide, non—compefsnce of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity Wifh the rules and regulations. The petitioner cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.?.Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and «motheri, Shilpi Bose Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another“, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Behemoth & another“) State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others" and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P, & Others5), 10. The Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & 0thers6, held that “In a matter of transfer of a government employee, scope ofjudicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, p be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the Courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer.” 11. There is no challenge to the impugned order on any other permissible legal grounds as afore—stated, warranting interference with the impugned ouler. 12. For the reasons as afore—stated, the petition is dismissed. No Thakur order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge N 1 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 sec 659 3 (2004) 4 scc 245 4 (1995) 3 sCc 270 5 (2007) s scc 150 6 (2009) 8 sec 337