$ Cé"!./ b N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(S) NO.S$S5 OF 2010 ETITIONR: /‘ Sukhchand Ram Shouri,‘ ' Aged About— 55 Years, S/ o- .Shri Rohidas, Occupation— Service- Varisth Aantarik Lekha Parikshan Aywam ‘ Kararoparn r Adhikari, Simga, Janpad Panchayat Simga, Distt— Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ESPONDENT(S_)’;71. State of Chhattisgarh . ‘ Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Samaj Seva, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) . Director, Panchayat' and Samaj Seva, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer. I Janpad Panchayat Simga, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) . Haridayal Manikpuri, S/oa (Not knoWn to the , petitioner). Aged About- 4 5' Years, Janpad Panchayat Simga, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA smcLE MR V I PE R . r m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.535‘3 OF 2010 PETITIONER Sukhchand Ram Shouri Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri J.N. Nande, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.4. RESPONDENTS ORDER tORAL) (Passed on this 4‘ day of March, 201 1) Heard learned counsel forthe parties. 2. The case of the petitioner is that by an order dated 15-7-2010 (Annexure — P/2) the petitioner was transferred from Janpad Panchayat Narharpur, Kanker to Janpad Panchayat Simga, Raipur and by the same order the respondent No.4 was transferred from Janpad Panchayat Simga to Janpad Panchayat, Lakhanpur, Surguja. As an effect of the said order, the petitioner was relieved on 27-8-2010 (Annexure — P/3) and he joined at his transferred place on 30-8-2010 (Annexure — P/4). ln the meanwhile, on 28-8— 2010, the impugned order (Annexure — P/1) was issued and it was directed that the respondent No.4 will return back to Janpad Panchayat, Simga and the petitioner will go to Janpad Panchayat, Lakhanpur, where the respondent No.4 was earlier sent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed to accommodate the respondent No.4 at Simga. The earlier order dated 15—7-2010 was almost executed by the petitioner; therefore, an executed order cannot be modified in the said manner. 4. Though the petitioner was relieved on 27-8-2010, but he could not join at Janpad Panchayat, Simga before the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. on 28-8-2010. ln fact, the petitioner joined at Janpad Panchayat, Simga on 30-8-2010. The petitioner challenges the order dated 28-8-2010 on the ground that once the petitioner has been relieved no other order can be passed transferring him to another place by way of amendment. Before joining the new place of posting the transfer order can always be amendedr Be that as it may, it is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the empioyer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved ma/a fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner has failed to establish and prove his contentions, except making selfsame statement. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another’, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another2, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and others3 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others"). The Supreme Court, in Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others5, held that “ln a matter of transfer of a government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer". Even othenNise, there‘is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. l - i Sd/- Gcavri Satish K. Agnihotriv , w Judge A l 1 1974 (4) soc 3 2 (2004) 4 soc 245 3 (1995) 3 scc 27o 4 (2007) 8 soc 15o 5 (2009) 8 scc 337