G^21 :/< SWGLE BEWH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fW.P. rS) No. ...&^?.27......./09^ PETITIONER Grahan Das Manikpuri S/o. ^ Natthu Das Manikpuri, Aged ....• ^e^ <,^..^.. about - 43 Year, R/o Village - J*'° -^••' ...." ,..•*• "J^-:\'^;<^-"><" Madawa, Block - Kasdol, .^^-" r> RESPONDENDS District-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ 1as—T^ 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through: Secretary Tribal welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) v' 2. The District Education Officer, '_ .Hef\ Tah & Distt. Raig£=fa(C.G.) 3. The ChiefExecutive Officer Jila Panchayat Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ./'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.6502 OF 2009 PETITIONER Grahan Das Manikpuri Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others (Writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS Present: - Shri S. D. Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 101" day of November, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition was heard finally. (2) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 09-10-2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raipuri passed in representation filed by the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 19-08-2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(S.)No.4460 of 2009. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(S)No.4460 of 2009 impugning the transfer order dated 06-08-2009. Vide order dated 19-08-2009, on the request of iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a representation before the concerned authorities. It was further directed that in the event, a representation is made by the petitioner, the same may be decided within a period of three weeks from the date of its receipt. The representation filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the order was passed strictly in accordance with the rationalization scheme in public interest on account of administrative exigency. (3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. This Court is of the view that there is no irregularity or illegality or unreasonableness in the order impugned herein. (4) It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, 2-- 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 malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 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 another5, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another, State of M. P. and anotherv. S. S. Kourv and others7 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U. P. &others8). (5) Even otherwise, the transfer is not a punishment but jt is an incidence of service. Thus, the impugned order isunexceptionable. (6) In view of the foregoing, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge <.v^' 51974(4)3cc 3 6 (2004) 4 SCC 245 7 (1995)33cc 270 8 (2007)83cc 150