4v IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATISGARH AT: BILASPI IR w.P.(S)No. NR9 o1=201 PETITIONERz/ Chamdramani Dubey, aged 55 years, son of Shri B. P. Dubey, Forester, Bhaisma in range Korba, district Korba (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, department of Fibrest, Raipur, /2. Divisional Forest Officer, Korba division, district Korba (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. T 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1449 OF 2011 Chandramani Dubey Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 17‘“ day of March, 201 1) Challenge‘in this petition is to the transfer order dated 262.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Forest Range at Bhaisma to Forest Range, Kartaia by the Divisional Forest Officer, Korba. The indisputable facts in brief are that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Vanpai by order dated 7.7.2010 and posted at Forest Division, Korba. Thereafter, by order dated 19/20.8.2010 (Annexure P-3), he was posted as Range Assistant at Bhaisma. On completion of about four months, the petitioner was again transferred by the impugned order to Kartala Range and was posted at Forest Beat Koi. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order is bad on the ground that it is againstvthe policy and the rules framed by the Government. No transfer within six months can be done, as children of the petitioner are studying at Bhaisma. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the records appended to the petition, it is found that no policy or rules have been produced to indicate that there was infraction of any policy or rule, as pleaded by the petitioner. Children studying at Bhaisma, cannot be a ground for interference with the transfer order and malafide intention has been averred without proving the same. Thus, petition is bereft of merits and deserves to be quashed. [\) Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court shouid not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. ln the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another’, Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar & anotherz, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Othels" Chief dommercial Manager, South ' Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others”). 6. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. r Sdl- sATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge 2 3 (1991) Supp 2 scc s59 4 (1995) 3 scc 270 5 (2007) a soc 150 B (2007) a SOC 212 (2009) 8 scc 337 l 1 1974 (4) scc 3