WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1103 OF 2012 v. State of Chhattisgarh (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) & Ors.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1103 OF 2012 ^ PETITIONER Vishal Son Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 5th day of March, 2012) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By t|iis petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the [egality and validity ofthe order dated 29-2-2012 (Annexure - P/1) by which the petitioner has been transferred from Flying Squad, Raipur Transport Office, Raipur.

Learnred counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that impugned order is bad in law, as the petitioner has been transferred fourtimes within a short span oftime i.e. on 31-8-2010 (Annexure P/4), 28-2-2011 (Annexure - P/5), 30-8-2011 (Annexure - P/6) & 29-2-2012 (Annexure - P/1). Thus, the impugned transfer order amounts to frequent transfers. Secondly, vide circular dated 12-6-2008 (Annexure - P/7) it has been directed by the State Government that while considering the cases of the reserved category employees, the authorities should not make frequent transfers and there should not be any discrimination in transfer.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits Ihe impugned transfer order was passed purely administrative exigency, having regard to the fact that the posting of an.employee in the Department of Transport at a particular place fo^more than six months creates administrative problem. ..-:••* % ^ ^s'^y ''•i";,:::~~.^-,-ssfy' <b On perusal of the impugned transfer order dated 29-2-2012 (Annexure - P/1) it appears that it is not a case where only the persons belonging to reserved categories have been transferred, but the persons of other communities have also been transferred. Thus, it cannot be held that the impugned order has been passed in a discriminatory manner and in violation of the circular dated 12-6-2008. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from the evil of frequent transfers is concerned, the same cannot be held as frequent transfers, because there is a gap of six months between two transfers, may be having regard to the nature of job, it is necessary for the authorities to transfer its employees from one checkpost to other to avoid complications or irregularity in performing their duties. Thus, the transfer of the officers is being made in this manner to encourage smooth functioning of Department. The grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order comes within the ambit of frequent transfers, is not well established and not sustainable in law. This Court in Tejnath Singh v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others , observed as under: "5. Frequent transfer means, an employee transferred frequently several occasions. The grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order comes within the ambit of a frequent transfer, is not well established and not sustainable in law as the earlier transfers were made only after lapse of one year, particularly in the month of May, July and August....." In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed miserably to establish thatthere was any ma/a fide exercise of power. Even there is no allegation on the part of the petitioner that the officer passing the order has no competence to pass the impugned order and/or the jmpugned order is violative of statutory rules and regulations. 1 WP-(S) No.1092 of 201 1 (decided on 25-2-2011) /'€^ \ 1 i "l"°°i® i S - .'^ ^ ^ ^ '^ 'giiTBC''

Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish 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 Nadu and another^, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another^, State of M.P. and another v. S.S. Kourv and others4, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others5 Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authorify of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Othars).

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.

For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge