,HIGH COURT OF CHHATT18GARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PEI'mON (S) No. 5Q55_of20W PETmONER Mohd, Naim s/o Late Shri Oulam Rasul, Aged about 43 years, R/o Quarter No. 21, New Colony, Prembag, Baflcunthpw, District Korea (CG) VER8U8 RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Seoretary, Women, Child & Social Welfare Department DKS Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2. Commissioner, Women, Child & Social Welfare Directorate, Raipur. Distorict Raipur (CG) 3. Collector, Korea, District Korea (CG) 4. District Programme Officer, Women, Child & Social Welfare Korea, District Korea (CG) WRIT PETniON UNDER AR'I'ICLE 226 OF THE CONST'ITU'l'ION OF INDIA 8B: Hon^ble Shri Satish K. Agiithotri, J. Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain^ Panel Lawyer for the StaWrespondents. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 07tt day of Septsmber, 2009) 1. The petitioner has impugned the transfer order dated 29 June, 2009, (Annexure P/2) whereby the petitioner was transferred from the office of District Programme Officer, Koria to the office ofDistrict Programme Officer, Mahasamund. The petitioner has earlier filed a writ petition teing W.P.(8) No. 3779 of 2009 (Mohammad Naim v. State of C.G. & Others) which was disniissed as withdrav,rn on 24 July, 2009, with a direction to the Stete authorities to considsr his pending represestation dsted 3/5 Jufy, 2009 A& A^- (Annexure P/4). Amit 2. Mer considering the aforesaid represaitatieai, the impugned order dated 29th June. 2009 (Annexure P/l) has b^n passed by the State/respondents stating fhat fhe transfer order was passed purely on admimstrative ground. 3. It is well-settled principle oflaw that transfer is an incidence ofservice and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted; keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limitedjurisdiction to interfere with th@ traiasfer matter and except iti the cases ofproved malafide; non-competence ofauthority passing the transfer order and not being in conjformity with the mles and regulations. (See Kendrwa Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandsy & Others^). 4. There is no challeaige to the impugned transter order on the ground of lack of competence ofthe authority passing the order or breach ofstatiitory provisiom or malafide. This is not a case where any permissible ^ouads as stated above has been raised. 5. Thus, this petition being devoid ofmerit, is accordingly dismiased. Sd/- SatishK-Agnihotn Judge (2004)12^:0299