H!SH COURT OF GHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Si No. 3670 of 2007 Petitioner B.L. Pate!, aged about 51 years, S/o. Shri Santosh Kumar Patel, R/o. Rangs Officer, Chhura, Raipur Dh/ision, District Raipur (C. G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattishgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Conservator of Forest D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Ayodhaya Singh Uike, Range Officer, Aavapaiii production, Forest Division, Beejapur (C.G.) Wrtt petltion under Articte 226/227cfthe Consfltution of India Singte Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justtee SaSsh K. Agnihotri. Present: Shri Sunil Oiwani, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. Advocate for ths State/ rsspondent No.1 and 2. ORDER (Passsd on this 29th day of June,2QQ?) (1) The petitionsr, who is working as Range Officsr, being aggrieved by his transfer from Chhura, East Forest Division, Raipur to Cbarama Forest DhrisJon, Kanker, has fiied this petition on the ground that ifte transfer ofthe peSitioner is effected within a period ofthree months, which is contrary to the transfsr poiicy dated 13th June, 2007 (Annexure P-5). Sub Ctause (V) of Ctause II of the fransfer poiicy prescribes that as far as possibte, an employee be postsd at a ptace for s mintmum period of three years and if a fransfer is made on the bssis of some coinpiaint, the complaint has to be verifsed So sstablish charges. This particuiar is applicable to the transfer made by Departmenta! Minister or State Minister, independent charge. !t appears that by ttie impugned order dated 18-06-2CX)7 (Annexure P-1) the petitioner along with 39 more officers has besn transferred from one piace to other piace. 1 -~- Kanma (2) Thg grievancs of the petitioner that i{ amounte to frequent transfer, Is not accepted, as frequent transfer means within a perlod of one or two years several transfers have been made. Transfsrring of an emptoyee 1 withtn a period of three months does not come under the definition of frequent transfers.' So far as transfer policy is concerned it is not mandatory but it is regulatory. The Government is competsnt to post an employee in administrative exigency and in the public interest. Since this order has not been passed against the pet'rtjoner aione but 39 more officers have been fransferred by this order, thus this order can b®held as an order based on pubiic interest and due to admjnistrafrv'e exigency. (3) !t is we!! setBed principle of law that transfer is an incident of sepv'ice and i{ is for the employer to decide as to where a particutar officer/empioyss is to be posted in the interest of admintst-ation and pubite. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in transfsr matters and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved maia fide, non-competence of the auShorifr/ passing She transfer order, snd order not being in conformity wth rutes and regulations. the ru! (4) As a result, She •ivrit pstltion is dismissed summarily. Sdi- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge