/ “Hmg SWGLE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: C.G. W.P.NO. OF 2006 036?£/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner: Kalyan Sahu S/o Shri Dayaram Sahu, /"“ aged about 52 years, Patwari,Nawagarh, R/o Nawgarh, District Durg(C.G.) Vs. Respndents: 1) State ofC.G. d t n‘k Through» Raipur Secretary, Revenue Department, f y 3 fy Jr , t 16$) Collector, Land Record (‘‘ L? 3) ( Tahild, Branch,Durg,District Nawagarh, Durg g9) M/Distriet Durg a . w , {g v P ,. sar HEGH CQURT GET €HHATT1SGARH AT EILAgPUR S.B. : HGN’BLE SHRE SAT1§H K. AGNEHQTRE, VACATIGN JUDGE VVRET PETI'HGN N0.2691 OF 2086 Kalyan Sahu Patitioner VEI‘SHS Raspondemis; Stata of CG. and others Presant ; Mr. Mr. Maiav Yash§vant KumarBhad Singh fh;1;{1r, 111 001111561 Gox‘femment-AdxrggaE for the pehtwilar for the respondentfs. @RA‘L GRDER (Pagsed on 5m June, 2006) The petitioner challenges tranSfer order dated 31~7-2QO4§ Aenexure P—4 amd relieving order dated 174—2006, Atlnexure 13—5, whereby the petiiicmer “as Transferred and relieved from Patwari Haika No.5, Nawagarh m Patwari Halka N09, Berla. Learned counsel appearing for the peiitioner submits than the impugned ti‘ansfer order was passed 0n 3l—7—2004 and the petitioner was; allnwed to continue as Patwari in Patwaii Halka No.5, Nawagarh for more than one year and the relieving order was passed on 17— 4—”006. As such, it iS a ease ofmalafide exercise ofpower. e " Having heard learned caunsel appearing for the petitianar and V having gone through the documams appended t0 thé writ petitien, thé: case of mala fz‘a’e rs net made out, particularly in the fact when the petitioner was allowee to continue at the original piace of posting for more than one year V before relieving order was. passed. The petitioner alone was not transferred 9" by the impugned transfer order and not relieved by relieving order dated l7— 4-2006. It is well established nrinciple of law that t ansfer is an incident of service and thin is for the employer to poet the employee at a particular place A. in the public interest and in administrative convenience. No other allegation has been made. 3. In view of the foregoing, no case has been made out for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed summarily. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.2033/2006, I.A.No.5306/2006 and l.A.No.5307/2006 stand disposed of. No order as to costs. l Sd/— l Satish K.Agnihotri ‘ Vacation Judge ‘ Gopal ‘