HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitioa (S) No. 4652 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS t.^'^f^' P.K. Markandey, aged 49 years, S/o iate Ram Prasad Markandey, working as Accountant, At O/o Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department, Durg, District Durg (CG). VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh tiirough tfae Secretary, Department of Schedule Tribe & Schedule Caste Development, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Commissioner, Schedule Tribe & Schedule Caste Development Departnient, Chhattisgarh, H.Q. Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Campus, Raipur (CG). 3. Shri N.L. Kannauje, 4. Shri Miiza Masood Beg. 5. Shri Ram Kumar Sahu, 6. Sbri S.K. Shukla, All the respondent No, 3 to 3 are working as Accountant, At O/o the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Durg (CG). (WKIT PETmON UM5ER ARTICLE 226 OF 1'HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Sattsh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present ; Shri R.K. Kesarwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on tMs 26 day ofAugust, 2008) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing <w fioally. , 2. The petitioner impugns the order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Secretary, Govt. of Chhattjsgarh, Scheduled Caste & Scheduied Tribe Welfare Department, whereby, the representatipn of ~the petitioner has been rejected. ^K- 3. The petitioner impugned fhe transfer orderdated 30.06.2008 (Annexure P/2) in this Court. This Court, while disposing of the matter on 10.07.2008, granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before tiie eonceraed authorities. On representation, filed by the petitioner, the Secretary of the concemed department, after having considered, rejected the representation on 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/l). 4. It is trite law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular ofBcer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in tfae transfer matter and this Court can mterfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in confonnity with the mles and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place, forever, by Court orders. It is not a case of proved malafide, lack of competence of'the officer passing the transfer order or infraction ofany statutory Rules and Regulations. 5. The petitioner has not raised any point as stated above while impugning the transfer order dated 30.06.2008 (Annexure P/2), fhus, the petition is devoid of-merit, and is accordingly dismissed. In tiie event, post of Sahu accountant is not available at tfie place, he has been posted, the govemment authorities may consider and post the petitipner ofl' a pardcular place where post ofAccountant is available. ^^? l'!ll