IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(S)No. Qllf /2010 PETITIONER Prakash Sahu, S/o. ShtiiLP. Sahu,rage / d about 50 years, R/o. Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G‘.) VERSUS “Vi RESPONDENTS /1] State 0f Chhattisggrh, Through: Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur v(C.G.) /2] Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dhamtari, Code N0. 90, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3] Subhash Sharma, Assistant Engineer (Design), Office of Engineer—in—Chief, Water Resources Department, Sinhawa Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G,) /4] J.R. Sahu, Assistant Engineer (Design), Office'of Executive Engineer, Dam, Division No.2, Rudri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) , I g” A if C («x 5 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ §iiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH &T BILA$§UR W%§T PEETIQN 43) N0. 6221 0? 261$ Petkiinner Prakash $ahu Ve¥sus Resmmients State of Chha‘ttisgarh & Others WRH’ PETITION UNDER AR‘QCLE 22$ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF £ND§A {SB Hon’me Mr Satash K iAQmhairi, J} Pmsenib Shn Maw; Paranjape Advocate forthe petitioner Shn S S Rajput Advocate forthe resoondent No 3 Shra N h Roy, Pane! Lawyer for the State QR§ER (GR§L3 (Passed 0n 18‘” day of February, 201 1) By this petit§on, the petitioner seeks to challenge the iegaiity and validity of the order dated 22.102010 (Annexure P—1), whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Nagri to Rudri. The main chaitenge to the impugned order is that the petitioner was transferred onty to accommodate the respondent No3 & 4. The petitioner has been transferred from the present ptace of posting before comptetton of 1 1/2 years of service against the transfer poitcy and without there being any administrative exigenoy. Thus, the impugned order is iiiegai, arbitrary and against the transfer poiicy. On the other hand, teamed counsel appearing for the State while supporting the impugned transfer order submits that the same has been passed on the basis of administrative exigency and the petitioner has no right to work in a particular piece for ever. Thus, there is no merit in this petition and the same may be dismissed. i have heard iearned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. There is no specific circumstance, which exist in favour of the petitioner warranting interference with the administrative function of the State Government by posting of an empioyee from one piace to other Be that as it may, it is a trite iaw hat transfer/posting is an incidence of servace. The Court shouid not interfere With the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. in the case on hand, the petitioner p1 _ 2 @ has fai§ed to e$iabi§sh any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted‘anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative‘exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nada and anotheri Shilpi Bose (ll/Ire.) and others v. Sfafa of Bihar 8, anotherz, srare of MP. and another v. S.S.Korrrv and ofhersi Mohd. Masooa‘ Ahmad v. State of UP. & Others" Chief 1 19M (4) soc 3 2 (1.991) Supp 2 soc 65a 3 (1995) 3 s’cc 270 4 (2007) 8 soc 150 5 (2007) 8 scc 212 6 (2oo9) 8 soc 337 Commerciai Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Qa‘hers v. G. Rafnam & Others5 and Airporrs Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Othersa). V 7. Applying the well—settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. 8. ln the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order aeto costs. E l Sd/- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge