^^^M^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM. BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNILKUMARSINHA ^ WRiTPETiTJONfSl N0.6^340010 PETITIONiR RiSPONDENTS S.K. Gupta, S/o. tate Maheshwar Prasad Gupte, aged ^bout 51 yeare, R/o. Rajpur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.) VERSUS ? 1. State of Chhattisgarh, ^rhrough: Secretary, TribatWelfere Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) •^. 2. Commissioner, Tril^l ^M^QiSare Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Dtstrict Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) 4. Maniram Lahare, Chief Execiutive OfRcer, Janpad Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, District Surguja (C.G.) W81TPETJTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ADDearance: Mr. Manoji Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitiwier. Mr. R. Tripatizs.m Panel Lawyer for respondent No. t to 3. Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate for respondent No.4 on a caveat petition. QRALORD^ • - ! : ;-.-. :- 29.10.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA.J. Heard. Petitioner- S.K. Gupta is working on the post of Chief Executive Officer. By the impugned order dated 22.10.2010, he has b^n ftansferr^l from Bagicha, District Jashpur to the option of Assistant Commtsstener, Tribal Welfare, Jashpur. Mr. Paranjpe submits that this order has been passiad to accommodate respondent No.4. No material has been shown to substantiate that ttw ^trBoner has been transferred to accommodate respondent No.4. On being pointedly asked from leamed counsel for the petitioner^that since^when the petitioner is working at Bagicha, he submits that petjtioner is working at Bagicha since 04.03.2009. r^ ../ y llil WRIT PETITION (81 N0.6334/2010 ^ It has not been disputed that the petitioner is working on a transferabte post. Transfer is an incidwice of servlce. No person working on a transferable post can make his claim (or posttngat a particular place. It is for the employer to see as to who shoutd be postedl srt whtch place, keeping in mind the better functloning of the department as alsothe public interest. Untess the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malaficles or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed againstany statutory Rule or the Act, normally such orders are not to be interfered by a Court of taw, is the settted view of the Apex Court in many cases. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any sutetance in tie petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is her^>y dismissed. •^ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ,.,^'