,f:"-:>% •O a o^" |o? "c y HI6H COURT OFGHHATTES6ARH AT KELASPUR W.P.fS) No. 4196 of 2008 PsTiTioner Lagnu Ram son of KejytomS^ about 50 years, Occupation Attendant, Veterinary Ho^ii+a!, Chilhati, DiSTrict - RajRandgaon (C.G.) Versus Responden+s 1. State of Chhatti^arh. Through; The Ghief Secretary, Mmtraloya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Elirector bf Veterinpry Sei'vicBS, MaRTratav'a, D.K.S. Bhavron, Raiour. 3. MohanLat Meshra.Son of Sianker Lal Meahrani, oged about 45 years, Occupation Art'enckmf, VeTerinary Hospital Khadgaon, bistrict - Rajndndyion (C-6.) WRTTPETFriONU!N&eRARTICLE226 OF THE CONStrrenON GF8 INDIA SB: Mon'bfe Mr, JusticeSatisk K. iAgnihotri. J -Sriri V. K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Smitha 6hoj, Pemel Lawyer for the reapondents. ORALQR&ER (PasseeioRthislstdayofAugust,2CK%) 1. Vv'ith the consent pf .the appearmg papties the matter is heard finaliy. 2. The petitioner has fiSed'riiis petition being og9rieved by thetransfer ordep dated 7.7.2008 (AnnexureP/1), uiheraby the petitioner. uihp w, was wor-kirig as A+tendunt in Ve'ferinary Hospitqt, Chilhnti, &istrict Rajnandgaon has been transferred ^0 ^hadgaon, bistrict Rajnandgaon, in •rtle same capacity. ond at his place the responcfcnt No.3 (Shri Mohan Lo! Meshra) has been transferred from Khadgaon. As per -Hie order, the transfer of +he petitioner as well as Feq)ondent No3, hns been macle on their oum request- L^rnedcounselappeai'in3.foi''*+iepetitionersubmi1'3'ri'iatthewifeof the petitioner is suffering froin/heart prpblenisand daugh'ter.is nlso 3. ^'^•^.4H^s^^~t^^^ .,„(' ^.F^1rtfTt*t^^iA-.l;*JU ;,t'y!4gp-:>, ^s. suffering froin some o-rt-ier disenses for which they are •taking tr<atnient in Rajnimdgaon, The petitioner never mqcfe g request for his transfer. The intpugried order has been possad just to accommodate the reaiondent No.3 at Chilhati. 4. Leorwed counsel fyrther aubmits that it is a caae of malafide eKepcise of powers snd as the req»ondent No.3, who is also an Attendant. holciing ihe. savne. post like the petitioiwr, is so influential peraon thot he can infiyence the senior officers. Except tbe self san-ie atatement. there is no material t.o Aoiiu malofide exercise of powers. On the basis of tiie self same sta'tement, in absence of supporl-ing documentfi, it cannot be established •thot-there is malafide e>eercise of nowers. 5. TheSubmission of -rtie petitioner that he has not miMJe any request for his transfer eind other persona! probleiiiS can be varified ewid conSidered by the concemed uuthority/employer. 6. Having heard learried ciiunsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the pieadings and documentsoppencied thereto, I om of +he opinion that it is npt a cose ufhich wgrronts intBrference with the tr-ansfer order- It is wel! sfettled principle of law that trgnsfer is an incidence of ser-viceanc! it is for the employer to decide asto wher-e a particulnr officer'/ei'fip!oyeetieposted,keepin9 in view public interest ns well as adniinisti'ative exigency. 7. This Court has limitecl jurisdiction to in+erfere in the tr'onsfer nwtter and ihia Coui^ cxm m^&rfsrt cmfy m #ie. caazs af ps'ove.d rM^a fide, non-cpmpetBntK of authority passing the tninsfer order and trariSfe!- order not beingiFi uinfQrniit^with the ryfes imd regutations. None of the abovegrounds are ayaihbleto the petitioner. S. In view of the foregoing, -rfiis pe+ition 'is disntissed, sumniarily.No order as to costs Thukur' sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge