Fetmoner HifEH $01.1??? O? CHH§TT§$GARH 3iLi§SPUI§ Wrii ?etit§on LS; No. 32?? of 2003 RL. Khandekar, Sfo. Shrl Saheb La! Khandekar; aged about 45 years, occupaticn : SeMse arescnthi warkmg Es Food mspector posted ”at Jgngésr. Tahsn & District Janjgir— ChampaCG)‘ versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretarv, Food-Civi! Suppiies Department, D.K.8v Bhawan, Ra§pur (CG). The Coiiectcr, .5an;g‘.r, District Janigir—Champa (CG) 3. The Cciiecmr, Ambikamn District Sarguia (CGjL Respcndants gWri’t Petiticn under Articte 226 of ‘me Ccns’tituiion of im‘éa) SE: Han’we Mr. $atish K. Agnihom, J. Present: Shri Shri Raviah ‘f‘ S Thakur Verma by: suns wvocca'ge WVtre Genergi pe+mc far ne State. 0M1. GREER (Paggd (m gm ciau gwugy; 2mg) Tne petitioner c‘naiienges the vatidktv cf the tranefer erder dated ‘sQ—E- 2668 (Annexure PH), whereby the petitioner wcrking as Food inspector; Ciass in empiavee has been transferred from District Janioir ‘to Disiriot Samma on administrative ground A .was eariier tranaferi‘eo‘ on 23" $307 (Annexure Pi2‘; on his request, from Sarguia to Janigir, Despite the order dated 29-6-2003 the petitioner was reiieveo‘ oniy in the month January. 2Ut38 and just within a period of five months, the petitioner has again been transferred to Sargoia on administrative ground. Learned counsei further submits that the order is vitiated on the ground that as being vioiative of the transfer poiioy of the State Government. z) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that t’ne petitioner 3) The transfer‘poiicy cannot be given status o’r‘ Ruies or Reguiationsi Under the provrsions of service ruies, emoioyer has aii the powers to post an _. 2/ empioyee at a pa‘ticular piace in view of gubiic miereSt and due is adminisiratwe ex‘sgency. Transfer DGKc‘g £s a mere guic‘elines far the offmers‘ 4) Ln, thee maiter 0f ER Reyaggya Vsa Siam 0f TamEE Nada and another 5, the Supreme Court omen/ed as under. “88 wiih the vast muitétudinous activiiies m which a modem State is engaged, mere are beund t0 be some pests whéeh require fer adequate discharge ef their functions, hEgtqdegree of intelkec‘: and specialized experience §t ‘Ss always a difficmt ereb’tem for the Governmerrt to Fm: suéiawe efecefe for such seecia!ized caste. There are net ordinarily many effreere who answer the requirements cf such specialized posts and the eholce with the Gevemment is very iimited am this choice becemes ail the mere difficult, because some oi" these peers, though importani am. hevirig onereue reepensi do net earn; wide execuiive powers end s mav riot, iherer‘oi‘e, generaiiy be wiiiing to be transferred to those pests Tire Government has in the eireums’rances t0 make the best possible rhoiee it can, keeeing in View the larger interests 6f the administration. When. in exercise 0t this cheice, the Gevemment transfers an officer item ,ene place to anotn r, the officer mav feet unttaeey because the new post does net give him the same amplttude or pewere which he had while herding the oid post. But that does net make the transfer arbitrary. So teng’ae the traneter ie made on acceunt of exigencies ef administratien and is net from a higher post to a iower poet with dieoriminatery preference of a ionior for the higher pest, it would be vaiie’ and net open ta attack tinder Artiste 14 and 15.” 5} in the matter of ehttpi Bose {Mm} and others Vs. etaiie 0t §ihar and othereY, the Supreme Ceurt cheers/ed as under, “4. in our cpinion, the eourte shouie‘ net intertere with a transfer order which is made in pubiie interest and fer administrative reaeene unieee the traneter orders are made in vioiatien of any mandatory statutory ruie or on the groune of mate tide. A government servant heiding a transferable poet has no vested right to remain posted at one piece or the other. he is iia‘oie to be transferred from one piece to other. Transfer oae'e issued by the competent authority cio not Vioiate any of his lega‘i rights. Even it a transfer order is passed in vioiation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinariiy should not interfere with the order instead affected party i (4) SCC 3, 7 i991 Supp r2) soc 659 b , ~ _3" shouid approach t he-higher authorities in th department. If the mama continue tn interfarence with Gay«to—day transfer arders issued by the government and its subardinate authorities, rhere wiii be compiete (mans in the administration which would mt be conducive ta pubiic interest.” 6) he n‘ictum iaid down by me Supreme‘ Caurt in the above stated cases have been fciicwed subsequentiy in other decisions. {See — Union of indie anti others V5. Janardnan Debanath am! another37 mate of MR arm] ' another V55. es. Kmirev and others“ 8:: Mom. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of LLP. and otheref‘): 7) it is weii settied principie of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for ine empioyer to decide asto whether a panicuiar omcer/empioyee be posted keeping in view pubiio inieresi as weii as administraiive exigency. This Court has iimited 'iurisdiciion to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy in the case or" proved mate ride, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the ruies and reguiations. The pe’titionerfempioyee cannot be permitted to. remain at one piece, forever, by Court orders. 8) The petitioner is not questioning the vaiiciity of the transfer order on any permissibie grounds i.e., maia ride, non-competence of the officer or contravention of the statutory mies and reguiations. 9) in View of the foregoing! this petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Aocordingiy, the petition is dismissed. // raju Sdl- . . Satish K.Agmhom 1‘ Sudge 3 2004 {4) soc 245 f i995 (3) soc 27o ”2007(8) SCC 150 e