t^ \0-Z^ ^?U] IN TEffi HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P. (s) NO. 6 5^-T / 2010 / Smt. Sawdham Lal, W/o Resham Lal, aged about 50 years, working as Supervisor, Women and Child Development Project Pali, Distt. Korba(C.G.) RESPONDENTS ^fe y.^^ ^^w?^ ^^•^ ^ <?3 ^>"..^ .^^ VERSUS /l. 2. ^ 3. State ofChhattisgarh Through- the Secretary, Women and Child Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur(C.G.) ^ District Programme Officer, Women and Child Welfare Department, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ProJectOfBcer, Women and Child Development, Project Pali, Korba, Distt.Korba(C.G.) WRITPETIT[QNUNDERARTICLES2260FTHE CONSTITUnONQFDMDIA It^ui HIGH COURT OF CHHA'mSGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER WRTTPETmON(S) No. 675 of2010 Smt. Sawdhani Lal. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh&Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjTION OF BMDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri AN.Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORALOKDER \i 1. 2. 3. 4. ;Hi (Passed on 15U1 day ofFebroary, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner is impugung the transfer order dated 29.06.2009 (Annexure P/2) andthe order dated 25.01.2010 (Annexure P/l) whereby the representation ofthe petitioner for canceUatiQtt ofher transfer, has beenrejected. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earUerfiled apetitionbeing W.P.(S) No. 6785/2009 challengmgthe impugned transfer order dated 29.06.2009 (Anhexure P/2), whereby the petitioner, working as Supervisor, Integrated Child Development Project, Pali, District Korba, was transferred to Pasan, District Korba. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.11.2009 wilfa liberty to pursue her pendmg representation. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a represeiitationto the resppndent No. 1 on 03.12.2009, which has been rejected vide orderdated 25.01.2010 (Annexure P/l). Thus, this petition. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings anddocumentsappendedlhereto; On pemsal ofthe impugned order dated 25.01.2010 (AnnexureP/1), it is appareHt that the respondent No. 1 hasconsidered and decided the represeiitation of the petitioner ih accordance with law. Furtha', the petitioner hasbeen transferred wifhinthe same district and she has been relievied on 7.7.2009 fh)m^liepresentplace Qfpostmgiorjomingatthe, transferred place of postmg. The petitioner was posted at Pali sinee 30.12.1999, and in this way, she was posted there for about 10 years. The petitioner has not pointed out any mamfest error in the impugned order. Thus, the said order does not warrant any interference. The allegation of the petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner is illegal and malafide, is not supported by any cogent reasons. The petitioner has made a selfsame statementWithout any basis. Thus, the said cantentions deserve to be rejected. The petitioner has not impugned the transfer order on any other adniissible grounds i.e. lack of competence of the officer passing the order, or violation of statutory mles or regulations. It is a trite law that transfer is an incidence of service. The Court should not mterfere with the transfer order unless there is a malice, mfringement ofstatutory rules and regulations or lack ofcompetence of the officer, passing the order. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any ofthe aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and admuiistrative exigency. Thus, Ifae hnpugned transfer warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another/, ShilpiBose (tvlrs.) andothersv StateofBihar &another?, StateofM.P. andanotherv. S.S.Kourvandother/,Mohd.MasoodAhmadv. Stateof UJ>. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Raihvay, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Other^ andAirportsAuthority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others ). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand, there is no merit in the case and is accordingly dismissed at 1he motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aarit ' 1974(4)3cc 3 2 (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) SSCC 150 5 f20flzi&sca'u-i-