HIGH COURT OFCHHATnSGARH: BILASPUR Wnt Petition (Sl No. ^8of2007 Petttioner Respondents 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Vijay Pratap Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Late Bhagat Singh, working as - Sub Engineer, Department of Water Resources Division - Mungeli, Dist. Bilaspur, CG. Veisys State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Water Resourees, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawari, Raipur, CG. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of . Water Resources, Raipur, CG. Ghief Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Kachchar Division, Dist. Bilaspur, CG. Exeoutive Engineer, Department of Water Resouroes, Maniyari Water Resources Division, Mungeli, Dist. Bilaspur, CG. Sub Divisional Offioer, Water Resources Department Sub Divislon, Takhatpur, Dist. Bilaspur, CG. s' (WRIT PETITION UNDER.ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri R.Pradhan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sgtish Gupta, DeputyGovt. Advocate forthe State. O RD E R (Passedon 25th April, 2007) By this petition, the petitioner impugnsthe order dated 17-1-2007 (Annexure P/1), whereunder the petitioner was transferred from the post of Sub Engineer, IVIaniyari Water Resources Division, Mungeli to the office of ExecutiveEngineer.WaterResourcesDivision, Jashpumagar. -•z- ^ Raju 2) The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has submitted in its return that there are surplus.employees whjch is contrary to the facts. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there are 29 sanctioned posts and actually working .are 28. Thus, the statement of the respondents to theeffect'that the transfer order has been made on account of being surplus, indicates mala fide exercise of power on behalf of the respondent. 3) On reading of both the orders dated 17-1-2007 and 25-1-2007 (Annexure R/1), it is nowhere foynd that the impugned orders have been passed on account ofthe fact that the petitioner was surplus employee in the said offlce. Relianoe ofthe learned oounsel appearing for the petitioner on Annexure P/8 which has been filed subsequently, has no basis so far as transferorder is concemed. Allegation of mala fide is baseless. 4) On reading ofthe transfer order.it is clear and unambiguous that the transfer order has been passed in public policy dueto administrative exigency. 5) Be that as it may, it is v/ell settled principle of law that transfer is an inGident of sewioe and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular oTficer/employee be posted , keeping in view public interest as welt as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdjction to interfere in the transfer mater and this Court can interfere only in the case ofproved mala fide, non-competence ofauthority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in oonformity with tbe. rules and reguiations. 6) In view ofthe above, thls petition is dismissed: No order as to oosts. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge