^.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 335 of 2003 Petitioner Ruben Minj, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Budhu Miaj, resident of ViUage Bhabhri, TehsU and District Jashpuniagar, workiag as Sub Inspector, Police Station, Sitapur aiid ou traiisfer to Surajpur, Distdct Sargiya (Chhattisgarh) Versus Respoadents 1, State of Chhattisgarh fhrough flie Secretary, Depailnient of Hoixie AfFairs, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Man.tralayQ., Raipur (Chhattisgai'h) 2. Superintendent of PoUce, Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) 3. Professor Gopah'am, M.L.A,, of Sitapiir Legislative Assenibly Constituency, resident of viUage aiid Post Office Soor, Tehsil Sitapur, Distdct Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) Shii S. R, J. Jayaswal, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shnvastava, Paiiel lawyer for the Respoudents No, 1 and 2. ORALQRDER ( 2nd Febmary 2006) The foUowmg order of the Court was passed by Satish K< Agsiihotri, J. The petitioiier who is Szib Inspector of PoUce was workiag at PoliCTk Station, Sitapur. He was traasferred by order dated 20.12.2002(Annexurc P/l) to tiie PoMce Station - Soorajpur, District- Siirgiija. The petitioner has filed fhis petition mipugniag the transfer order dated 20.12.2002 on fhe ground ofnialafide exercise of powers, This Court by order dated 18.2,2003 grmited status quo with regard to the postiiig ofthe petitioner Le. PoUce Station - Sitapur, Distdct- Siirguja, as on fhat date. It is well setded principle of law that the transfer is aa iacident of sen^ice and it is for fhe eniployer to clecide as to where a particiilar officer/eniployee be posted ia fhe intercst of fhe admmistration and ^i—-—- \'/ Thakur pubUc. This Court has Imiited jurisdiction to interfere ia the transfer order aad fhis Court ia exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can ititerfere oiily ia cases of proved inalafide, non-corapetence of fhe aufhorities, passing fhe traasfer order and not ia conforDiity wifh fhe Riiles aad Regzilations. Be fhat as it may, in the present case thoiigh fhe nialalide has been aUeged but not proved, However, m fhe fact of fhe case when fhe petitioner continued to reniaia posted on the old place of postmg froin 18.2.2003 tUl date, it is not necessaiy to examiae the traasfer order at fhis stage. The respondents are at Uberty to take appropriate steps ia rcspect to postiag fhe petitioner ia fhe pubHc interest aad adniuiistrative exigency, However, ia fhe facts of fhe case fhe respondents/aufhorities are directed not to uisist upon conipUaiice of the impugned transfer order. For fhe reasons stated above, the petition is disniissed. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge