^t<^— :•' \-' -K.VtS "' fi'SHia- SmaiS, IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.^^(S) No. 77 6% OF 2010. PETITIONER ^?^ \.^^.-"<"^0- ^t^ RESPONDENTS ^^_Mt^ /^^--^ ^/ \^ &lt.Ki»i^tK)» ^ C^f Bhola Prasad Acharya, S/o. late Shri Damaru Prasad Acharya, aged about 50 years, Health Worker,Sub Health Centre Sargipal, Block Bakawand, District Bastar (C. G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretaiy, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jagdalpur, Distt. District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PET!TIQN_UNDER ARTICLB^26 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (St N0. 7708 OF 2010 Petitioner Bhola Prasad Acharya Versus % Respondents State of Chhatti^arh & Another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CCT4STITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State/ respondents. ORDER fORAU (Passed on 20th day of January, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4-10-2010 (Annexur&-P/1), whereby the earlier orders dated 16.9.2010 and 24-9-2010 were cancelled and the petitioner was directed to join the new place of posting. The petitioner was working as Health Worker at Sub Health Center, Sargipal, Block Bakawand, District Bastar. By order dated 15-7-2010 (Annexure-P/2), the petitioner was transferred to Sub Heatth Centre, Harrakoder, Block Lohandiguda, District Bastar, on administrative ground. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dat»j 15-7-2010 in a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation. Thereafter, the representation was filed. The order dated 15-7-2010 was cancelled by subsequent order dated 16-9-2010. Now by the impugned order dated 4-10-2010, the order dated 16-9-2010 canceling the earlier order dated 15-7- 2010 has been cancelled and the original order dated 15-7-2010 has been revived. "£here is no specific circumstance, which exlst in favour of the petitioner warranting interference with the administrative function of the State Govemment by posting of an employee frcwn one Dlace to other. 2 Be that as it may; it is a trite law that transfer/posting Is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforesteted grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Govemment to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an emptoyee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another^, Shilpi Bose (Mfs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothei2, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and offser^, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. & Others4 Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad S Others v. G. Ratnam & Otte/s5 and Airports Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Other^). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there Is no merit in the case. In the result, the wrft petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^l! ashok <^~