W.P.(St N0. 7734/2007 pjBTITIONBR Versus 1. 2. Jai Lal Darro, Aged about 42 years, Asstt. Tcaclier, S/o, Shri BaUu Raui Darro, Govt. Primary School, Aniajhola, Block Kaaker, District Kanker (CG) Stete of Chhattisgarh, Through Uader Secretary, Tribal WeUare Department, D.K.S.Bhawaa, Raipur (CG) Block Education Officer, KanJrer, Distt. Kanker (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB COMSTITUTION QFjaBDIA (SB: Honlale Mr. Satish K. Aaailiotri, J.l Shri Sosikant Venna, counsel for the petitioner. Shri U.N.S.Deo, Govenunent Advocate forttie Sfate, (Passed oa tlils 3"' day of Jaauary 2008) The petitioner, wlio was worldng at Prunaiy School, Badnar, Block Keshkal, District Bastar was traasferred to Govt. Primaiy School, Amajhola, Block Kanker, Distt. Kanker by order dated 07.07.2007 (Aimexure P/1). Pursuant to tfae order dated 7*h Juty 2007, fhe petitioner jouied the Gtovenunent Primary School, Amajhola, Block Kanker, Distt. Kaaker on 4,08.2007. The State Goveriunent fhereafter vide order dated 3.12.2007 (Aniiexure P/5) ameuded the earUer order dated 7.07.2007 aud posted the petitioner froiu Govemment Primary School Aniajhola, Block Kaaker, Distt. Kaaker to Middle School, Konde, Dtu^Kondal. 2. Leamed couasel appearing for the petitioner submits that this transfer amounts to frequeut transfer. As fhe petitiouer was initiaUy posted at Goverrunent Primaiy School, Amajhola, Block Kaaker, District Kanker aad wifhin a short period he has been traasferred to Middle School, Konde, Durgkondal. Leamed counsei for the petitioner further subiaits that fhis amouuts to luala&de exereise ofthe power, 3. l-eamed counsel appearing for the respondent/ State submits tbat tlie order dated 3.12.2007 is not a transfer oider but it te a inere placeinent of the petituner within the same distnct fix>m Govenunent Primaiy School, Amajliola to Middle School, Koade, Diirg Kondal. The petitioner has not been traasferred fl'om one district to other dlstrict but Iie has been traasferred fi-oin one block to other block within fhe district due to adiiuiustrative exigency and pubUc interest. Learaed counsel further submits fhat this order has been passed in coordination with the Chief Muuster as per transfer poJicy. 4, I have gone through the pleadiags and dociuaents appended thereto. It appears that the petitioner has been transferred withia fhe same district ia coordiaatiou of the Chief Minister and it appears tbat the order has been passed iu pubHc inteaest as weB as iu adiiuiusteative ex^ency. With regard to inalafidee, as aUeged by the pertitioner, the petitioner has not inade out ftie case of malafidee on any other ground except fbat Iie Iias been re- trausferred withia a short period, which aiaoiints to inala&dc exercise of power. There is no ofhcr groiuid like non-coinpeteace of the autbority aad the traasfer order is not ia coitSrmity wifh fhe statutoiy provisions of law. The transfer is au incidence of savice aud fhis Court should restrain itself from. iaterfering witfa ftie aduunistrative exercise ofpowers by the respondents/authorities in case oftransfer ofaa employee except on the above stated groiinds. Suguna 5. Thus, no case has been niade out for interferencc. Accordingly, fhe petiti.an is disuussed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge