S/0 SHRI MANOHAR RAO KHANGAN v. THROUGH - ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR

S/0 SHRI MANOHAR RAO KHANGAN WORKING AS - ASSISTANT DIREECTOR, AT - 0/0 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, RAJNANDGOAN, ^R/O NEAR SONU CYCLE STORES, STATIONPARA, RAJNANDGOAN, DISTRICT - RAJNANDGOAN (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^--' :

THROUGH - ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR.

SHRI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 0/0 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, JAGDALPUR(C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER B' ^e^v^ —T ^'PS-, '<' 8. ' ''^SStSt i' Ik ^"'a8^1 lii. feb-j'' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S)JMO. 2935_OF 2012 PETITIONER S.S.Khangan Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench • hlon'ble Shri Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 08th day of August, 2012)

1. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as Shri Sao, learned Govt. Advocate, appears on behalf of the State/respondents, and consents for hearing.

2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 31.07.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner, working as Assistant Director at Office of Regional Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Rajnandgaon, has been transferred to the office of Regional Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Jagdalpur, on administrative grounds.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred only to accommodate the respondent No.2, as he has been transferred on his request and to entertain his request, the petitjoner has been transferred on administrative grounds, which is not permissible in law.

So far as the contention of the petitioner that the transfer order has been passed to accommodate the respondent No.2 is concerned, there is no merit in the case, as in -place of employee, who has been transferred, other employee is to be posted. Thus, even if, according to learned counsel for the petitioner is accommodation, that cannot-.be a ground of mala fide for setting aside the transfer order, l '.^! ^"t•^' .••'y 2 unless some cogent and strong reasons are produced to establish ma/a fide.

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, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency and there should not be any interference with the administrative function of the State Government.

This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide, 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 another, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anothei2, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and others and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others , Chief Commercial Manager, Soufh Central Railway, Secunderabad v. G. Ratnam , Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan PandeyB, High Court of Judicature of Madras v. R. Perachi and the decision of this Courf in Brajendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh8 and Dr. Toshan Lal Todar v. State of Chhattisgarh9 ).

In view of the above, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. s^^°^ Sao6n3^e