h Fitedon 1^^;^ TVeSon...-••••—•-'•^•'••^•f,. ex\..i(\,y^"^:—- irj.......<?""—•'••—'••"*••"""•""'"" ,..«»oca ^ft)"( <*&M,-<l«-V\i (Mc, Bo^-4 v/t^^ CF0000186283 AMENDED PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.l W.P.fSV. No. 5976 OF2008 PETITIONER Tarachand Bagde S/o Shri Suvinda Bagde, Aged about 53 YFS. Presently working as Patwari, Patwari Halks No. 27 Tehsil Dongargarh,^ Distt. Rajnandgaon, R/o Ambagarh Ward No. 7, Misia Bada, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. c_ ''^v7-^- 'f . «i^" c,^\t^~~ ^fc'0 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Thrbugh Secretary Department . of Revenue & Disaster Management, D.K.S. Bhavan RaipurCC.G.) - 2. Shashi Bhushan Das Vaishnav Patwari, Patwari Halka NQ.. 4 Tehsil Chowki, Bistt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^ % "3. Election Commission of India Through Secretary, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110001. 4. / yThe Chief Electoral Officer of // Chhattisgarh, Indravati Block '' Mantralaya, llaipur (C.G.)" WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . Particulars ofthe petitioner As mentioned above in the cause title, 2. PartiGulars of the respondents As mentioned above in the cause title, y k ^ HIGH COURTOF CMHAmSQARH : BiLASPUR cb PETITiONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5976 QF 2008 Tarachand Bagde Versus The Stats of Chhattisgarh & Othere (Writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Safish K. Agnihotri, J. .—A. Present:- Shri^AlokNigam.counselforthepetitioner. Ms. Smita Ghai, Pane! Lawyerforthe Stete. Shri Adi! Minhaz, counsel for the respondent No.2. 'i (Passed on this 15th day of September, 2009) 1. With the consent of iearned counse! appearing for the pari:ies, the petition is heard finaiiy. 2. Chaiienge in this petitionis to the orderdated 1-10-20)8 (Annsxure P/9) whereby the transfer order dated 30-6-2008 (Annexure - P/2), by which the petitioner has been transferred from PH No.4 Tehsi! Chowki to PH No.27 Tehsil Dongargarh, has been canceiied. 3. Leamed counsei appearing for the petitioner, submits ttst the ampugned order is bad on the ground thatincompiianceofthe order dated 30-6-2008 ths petitioner has aiready joined his transferred piace. However, after the petitioner has given his joining in the transferred olace on 18-7-2008, the transfer order has been cancelled by order dated 1-10-2008. Leamed counsel submite that once the order is duly complied with, the question of canceling the same does not arise. 4, Per contra, learned counsei appearing fer the respondents supported the impugnedorderand submitted that the same has been passed only after obtaining approvat from the Chisf Minister. £yi^-^Sltfri^-EyE33E33fieH=E-u?-»^=lMll,^aacjaBtww; <v Gowri °\ 5. I have heard learned counsei appearing for e parties, perused the pieadings and the documents appended thereto. The petittoner has not challenged the impugned order on legally permissibie grounds except the afore-stated grounds. There is no illegaiity or infirmity in the order. The same is just. proDer and does not warrant anv interference ofthis Court. S. Be that as it may, it is well-setted principte of tawthat transfer/posting of an empioyee is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a parUcular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as weil as administrative exiaency. This Court has limtted jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved mala fide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rutes and reguiations. (See Kendriya Vidyaiaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Others). There is RQ challenge tothe impugned order on theground of breach ofstatutory provisionsor ma/a flcte. This is not a case where any permissible grounds as stated above has been raised. 7. Thus, this petition being devoki of merit is liabie to be and is accordingly dismissed. Consequentiy, interim relief granted eariier is vacated. Sd/- ; ., SatishK.Agmb»tn Judge Jf 1 (2004) 12 SCC 299 ffi^. zs