T'v s SihgI&Bench^ @ C f~ f oo1-- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. \5-D'^'6 /2006 PETITIONER R.K.Patel, Son of Shri S.P.Patel aged about 43 years, resident of Village Basna, Tehsil-Basna, District-Mahasamund (C.G.). RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. * ,/4^^ \^^ / s^y ^NS^ /•" c^' \'-- ^°y ^'\^". ^<<{>/ y^" A~ .<<'€»' <" y o' State of Chhattisgarh, Through -Secretary, School Education Department, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Collector, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund. 3, District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 4. Block Edycation OfEce, Basna, DistrictMahasamund (C.G.). 5. Accountant, Block Education Office, Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). '£»• ov^ ,^- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS, DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS ETC. 1 ^^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble AAr. Justice Sfltish K. Agnihotpi. W. P. (S) No. 5076 of 2006 R.K. Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others Shri AAonoj Kumar Sinha; Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ar-vind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for fne State/respondents. OR&ER >th (18'rn September. 2006) 1. The petitioner, in this petition has impugned the trtBisfer order dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure P/2) and relieving order dated IK 26.8.2006 (Annexure P/5). 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed as Upper Di'./ision Teacher aid was working as Assistant Block Education Officer in BSock Education Office, Basna, bistrict Sy imDugned order dated 7.7.2006, the oetitioner was lock EducaTion Office, Basna to Sovernment Middle School, Sarkanda, Basna. TTiereafter, by order dated 26.8.2006 (Annexur-e P/5), tiie petitioner was relieved from his place of posting to join new place of transfer. 4. The petitioner is challenging the impuaned orders on the grounds that (i) ttie petitioner was transferred during the ban period, (ii) there was no admmistrative exigency, (iii) there was no comptaint against him, (iv) he would be surplus on the new plcce of posting, and (v) the children of the petitioner are studying in schoot at Basna. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as above. He further submits that the impugned transfer order as wetl as retieving order be quashed, accordingly. 6. Havir'9 heard learned counsel for the petitioner cnd having perused the record, the grounds above mentioned are not tenable in iaw. Eyen during the ban period, which is in t.he nature of guiddines, in case of administrative exigency a transfer can be made. There is no grlevwice of the petitioner that there was ony mala fide exer'cise of power or the authorit/ passing the transfer order was not competent or >rovisions of any statuary rules or circular have been violated. Learned counse! has not produced any documents or any eyidence to support his contention os stated above except self servicing statements. 7. It is well settled orinciole of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is foi' the emoloyer to dscide as to where a particular officer/employee is to be posted in the interest of "^MSS^^S^S ^-yt^^.^:L;-.^^,^^1 administration and public. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in transfer matl'ers and this Court can interfere onty in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of the authority is passin9 the transfer order, and order not being in conformitj^ with the rules and regulations. None of the above jrounds are wailable to the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- Satish K. A^ Judge Subhash