^o • HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT B1LASPUR WRiT PETITiON (S) N0. 2930 of2007 Petitioner Harish Bhatla, son of Late Shri S.R. Bhatia, aged about 59 years, Assistant Engineer, FOM, Sub Divisional Officer (F/M), Sub Division, Bilaspur, resident of MIG E-37, Parijat Extenslon, Nehru Nagar, Biiaspur. Resoondents Vsreys 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Water Resourees Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur. 3. The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Dam Project, Water Resources Department, Raipur. 4. The Superintending Engineer, E/M Circie, Water Resources Department, Raipur. 5. Prem Prakash Ajariya, Sub- Engineer (E/M) Office of the E.E. Heavy machinery Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRJT PETiTtON UNDERARTICLE 228 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF >- Single Bench :- Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present:- iVlr. Dinesh RK. Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.G. TamasKar, Advocate for the intervener. (Passed on this 10th day of May, 2007) By this petition, fiied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 3.5.2007 (Annexure P/9), whereunder the petitioner has b^en transferred in place of ihe respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 5 has been transferred in place of the petitioner on the same capacity without change or any service condition. By the impugned order, there is no change of the place, but change of work in the same office at Bilaspur. •""-SLV 2 .- -f^;;- ' t'.f' The impugned order was passed in accordance with the transfer policy, after having obtained approval of the Chief Minister. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not raised any other ground to question the adjustment in the same office, except that the respondent no. 5, by this order, would have better responsibility. 3. It is well settled principie of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the empioyer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public jnterest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matters and this Court can interfere only with the case of proved ma/a fi'de, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. None of the above grounds are avaiiabte to the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is accordingiy dismissed summarily. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge B/ . •^SSST^S' '.* \