HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETiTmN (S) NO. 1 654 OF 2009 Geeta Sidar, Wfo Shri R5. Sidar. aged about 34 years. Occupation Assistant Veterinary Officer. Offlc'e of Deputy Director, Veterinary Services. Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG), R/o H116 Krishi Mahavidyaiaya Awasiya Parisar..xAjirma. Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh. through Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Animal Husbandry), Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (CG). 2. The Coilector, Sarguja, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG). The Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG). 4. LD. Sinah, Assistant Veterinary Officer. Ofhce of Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of indie) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. PETITIONgE A RESPONDENTS Present :- Shri Shakti Raj Sinha. counsei for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 30E“ day of March, 2009) By this- petition. the petitioner impugns the order 24-2-2009 (Annexure-P/i) passed by the Collector. District Sarguja (Ambikapur) by which she has been transferred from Ambikapur to Pratappur. 2) Shri Sinha. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order was passed not because of administrative exigency, but due to male ride exercise of power. The impugned order has been passed by the Collector after hearing the respondent No.4 herein only and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Shri Sinha would further submit that the 'Collector is not competent authority to pass transfer order in respect of the petitioner because the appointing authority of the petitioner is the State Government. Shri Sinha would next submit that in compiiance of the order dated 30-6-2008 (Annexure — PIS) the petitioner has joined at Ambikapur on 4-7-2008 and before completion of dFd‘ pleadings and the State of Chhattis three yeafs of service at a particular piace the impugned order has been passed. which is against the transfer policy of the State Government. 3) l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the documents appended thereto. Pursuant to the order dated 14-1-2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.150i2009 (LD. Singh vs. garh & Others), all the Assistant Veterinary Ofticers posted in Sarguja district were considered and by the impugned order they were posted at different places. Thus, it cannot be held that the impugned order is an order of transfer transferring from one district to other district for which the State alone is competent to pass the order. There is no innrmity in the impugned order. The petitioner has failed to establish maia tide on the basis of documents tiled herein with the petition. The Collector is very well competent to post the officers within his district. 4) lt is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ofticer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as. administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved male dds. non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in cunformity with the 5) The courts or tribunals, which are appellate authorities, should refrain from considering the niceties of the administratiVe needs and requirements of the situation concerned. (See State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lat“). 6) The Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and othersz summ/e’d up, the. scope of interference in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. as under : 1 (2004) 11 SCC 402 2 (2007) 8 SCC 150 rules and regulations. “7. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia has been settled by Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Lid. v, SM Bhagwan,’ State Bank of India v. Anjan Sonya]. Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh v, Sfate of U.P. and Onkar Nath Tiwan‘ v Chief Engineer. Minor im'ngation Deptt. haé heid that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid deaisions is that an order of transfer is a pan of the service conditions of an emplayee which should not be interfered with ordinarilyby a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under ‘Articie 226 unless the court finds that either the order is mala tide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.” 7) ln View of the foregoing, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. \ 8) Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of./;¢// // sdl— Gowri 4 Sat-15" K. Agnimm Joége