IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ‘ ¥ § l BILASPUR t 1 i W.P.s.No. ‘62? OF 2‘010 Manoj Kumar Chandravanshi son of Shri Ajab Singh Chandravanshi, agad about—34 years,_Shiksha Karmi Grade—2, R/o‘ Village— PETITIONEER‘ _ I i Lohjhari , Gram Panchayat— Bhareli, Pdst— Sarangpur Kala, Tghsil—Bodala, Kabirdham ( Kawardha) (C.G.) x Distt. _ ‘ Q VERSUS ESPONDEM‘S 1 / , ‘, . State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Tribal Welfare :85 ’ Development Department , D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur ( (C.G.) 2. Collector, Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdha‘m / (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Kabirdham Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer; Zila Panchayat, l ~ / Kabirdhan; Distt. Kabirdham (co) > j 5. - Distt. Block Kabirdhamfcc.) Education Officer, Block— Bodala wRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 f CONSTITUTION OF INDIA m OF THE R - a l/’ l HIGI-‘I COURT‘OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT ILASPUR i ‘ I WRIT PETITION (S) No. 627 of2010 PETITIONER‘ ‘ ‘: Manoj Kumar. Charidt‘avanshi. 1, VERSUS 'RESPONbENTs : State ofChhattisgaxh & Others} I t f i WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF [‘HE CONSTI I‘UTION OF INDIA I c4 ‘ SB Hon’hle bhn Satish K. Agmhotm J Present Shn M K Smha Advocate for the petmoner v‘ Shn N N Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 2 3 & 5 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11‘“ day of February, 2010) Wlth the consent of learned counsel appeanng for the pames the matter 1s heard finally 1. By tlus petmon, the pentmner seeks to challenge the order dated 3O ()6 2009 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petltlonel workmg as Shlksha Kanm, Grade II, ‘at Govemment M1ddle School, Karesara, Block ' Boda‘la, District Kabirdham, was transfelred to Govemment Middle " School, Lalpur, Within the same block and district. 2. Leamed Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Shiksha' , its: ‘i Karmis cannot be transferred in ordinary course. The transfer order is against the policy. of the State Government and also there was no approval of the transfer order by the General Administration Comrn‘ittee. It is further contended that the impugned transfer order is . illegal and malafide ‘ Shri Sinha further submits that the petitioner has made a representatlon on 23 11 2009 (Annexure P/6) to the respondent ' i No 3 and 4 requestmg to issue postmg order for Jonnng at Government i ‘ $ x ‘ i ‘Schobl, Lalpur, as per the impugned tramfer order, but till date, {10 postu‘1g order has been issued. Thus, the imgugled transfer order may be quasfled. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent subnnts that the unpugned transfer order 1s Just and proper However, far as' issuing of posting order 1s concemed, the same shall be 1ssued I within a period oftwo weeks. I hatie heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto; On perusal of the application dated 2.6.2009 (Annexure P/2), it is apparent that the petltioner has glven optlon of three places for his transfer vrz Bendcln Clnmra and Lalpur By the nnpugied transfer order, the petitioner was posted at Government Middle School, Lalpur,’ Block BodlauThus, the petitioner has been given the place of posting of his choice. The allegation of the petitioner that the transfer ofpthe petitioner is illegal and malicious is not supported by any cogent reasons. The petitioner has made a selfsame statement without any basis. Thus, the said contentions deserve to be rejected. The petitioner has not impugied the transfer order on any other ‘ admissible gounds i.e. lack of competence of the ohicer passing the order, or violation of statutory rules or regulations. It is a trite law that transfer is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer order unless there is a malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the order. In the case on hand, the petitiOner has failed to establish any of r the forstated groundsf’The employee may be posted anywhere at the ae t \ 3 f and administrative exigency.‘ Thus, the impugled transfer warrants no interference. (See E.P.Rbyappa v. State. of Tamil Nadu and anotherl, Shilpi Bose Mrs.) and dihers v. instaklce ofthe employer in public interest Sratie ofBihar & anotherz, State ofMP. ind another v. S.S_Kourv and ' iotheirf Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. &‘Others4 Chief CommerczalManager South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v G Ratnam & Others; and Airports Authority oflndza v RaJeev Ratan Pan'dey & Others ). Applying the well-settled principles of laiw to the facts of the case on Lhan‘d there is no merit in the case and isl accordingly dismissed at the ' motion stage itself However as far as the grievance ofthe petitioner With regard to issuing order of posting to the transferred placel‘i‘s concerned, if the posting order has notbeen issued till. date, the same may be issued within a ,_ 'peiiod of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents. I P ‘ ’ e Li \ Sd/— < Satish K. Agnihotri; Judge ’i‘ W’Jy'r‘ ‘h ,,_> K r, k/ l ., 1 1974 (4)jscc 3 ~ 2 (i991) Supp 2 scc 659 3 (i995) 3 'scc 27o (2007) 8 SCC 150 (2007) s scc 2'12 6 (2009) 8 scc 337 LA l .