HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pefi'l'ion No.5646/2005 (Singk Bench : Hon'ble Shri Jusfice $.R.Nayak, Chief JusTicé) Pe'ri‘rioner: Habibu! Rehman, 5/0 Mansuskh Khan, aged about 47 years, Occupafl'on- Assisfum‘ Grade I‘ Director-are cf Agniculfure, Raipur (C.G.) Verus Respondenfs: 1) Sfa‘l'e of Chha‘rfisgarh, Through Secrefary, Agricul‘ture, D.K.$.Bhawan, Raipur' (CG) 2) Dir-ecfor, Direc‘l’om‘fe of Agr'wul‘l'ure, Chhaf'risgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Pnesen'f: 5m1'. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for The Pe?ifioner. Shri Vashwan‘f Singh Thakur, 6.A. for The Sfa‘re. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19.12.2005) The peTH’ioner is presenfly serving as Assis'l’an‘l’ Grade-I in The Office 0f Direcforate of Agriculfure a‘r Raipur (C.G.) and by The impugned order, he has been Transferred from ThaT place To The Office of DepuTy DirecTor, AgriculTure, Kanker‘ The vaiidiTy of The Transfer is assailed mainly on Two grounds. The firsT ground is ThaT amongsT 10 posTs of AssisTanT 6rade—I, Three posTs were required To be filled up by scheduied Tribe, one posT was reserved for scheduled Tribe and six posTs were required To be filled by unreserved caTegory candidaTes, buTu, commiTTing a misTake seven unreserved employees were promoTed and when This misTake was broughT To The noTice, The respondenT No.2 has effecTed The impugned Transfer order. According To The peTiTioner, among The promoTees, a prognoTee who is junior To The peTiTioner should have been Transferred To Kanker and noT The peTiTioner. The second conTenTion is ThaT Kanker is a far off place, and Therefore, iT would resulT in hardship To The peTiTioner. -g- 2. The firs‘r ground urged in fhe wrif pe‘ri‘l'ion is required fa be no'riced only 'ro be rejecfed. If is no? The requiremen‘r of The Iaw fhaf whenever a Sfafe employer wan‘rs 1'0 Transfer an employee from one place lo anm‘her in 'l‘he exigency of service and in The public ln‘leresf, he should necessarily 'l'mnsfer fhe junior mosf in a parficular cadre from fhaf place. Who should work where is a preroga‘rive of The 5TaTe Employer and Thorl' power cannoT be limiTed by This CourT. Even assuming ThoT The Transfer of The peTiTioner from The presenT place To Kanker would resulT in hardship, as held by The Apex CourT in The large number of cases, iT is noT for This CourT To annul a Transfer order on The ground of hardship and if The Transfer order resulTs in hardship, iT is for The concerned employee To make appropriaTe repr‘esenTaTion To The concerned auThoriTy in The adminisTraTive echelon. and iT is for such auThoriTy To appreciaTe The hardship and pass appropriaTe order. The CourT could Take judicial noTice of The facT ThaT every Transfer has The effecT of uprooTing The officer from a place and in ThaT sense, iT would definiTely resulT in same inconvenience and hardship, buT, The employees under The STaTe are‘ expecTed To bear such hardship and inconvenience in The public inTeresT. Having joined public service, iT should noT lie in The mouTh of The governmenT servanT To conTend ThaT he should be kepT aT a parTicular place and sTaTion for all Times. So long as The peTiTioner holds a Transferable posT, he is liable To be Transferred from one place To anoTher place and one posT To anoTher posT which is equivalenT in official sTaTus. 3. Looking from any angle, I do noT find any meriT in The conTenTions raised in This peTiTion. The wriT peTiTion is devoid of meriT and iT is accordingly dismissed, however, wiTh no_ order as To cosTs. { /w Sd/- Chief Justice .