HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P. (S)No. 691Oof 2007 Smt. Nirmala Singh Thakur, wife of Shri Makhan Singh Thakur, aged about 54 years, resident of Mangla road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur(C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Women and Chiklren, Social Development Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 District, Women and Children Devetopment Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 Smt. Jaswanti Tha'ware, Presently working as post of Integrated Children and women development officer at Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) / 4 Smt. Anjana Kundu, Presently working as post of Integrated Children and Women Development OfRcer at Pandariya, Distriet Kabirdham (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTtCLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Ajrt Singh, Counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (20.11.2007) SUNIL KUMARlSINHA, J. Heard. The petitioner who is working on the post of Project OfRcer was transferred from Mungeli to Masturi by order dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P/2). The petitioner had not complied with that order and before compliance of the same, a subsequent order dated 26.10.2007 (Annexure P/1) was passed and instead of Masturi, she was transferred to Pandariya on administrative grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a heart patient and taking treatmentfrom Apollo HospUal, Bitaspur, therefore, Masturi was more suitable for her than Pandariya. W.P.rS).No.691Q of2007 On being pointedly asked from tearned counsel for the petitioner that since when the petitioner was posted at Mungeli, he submte that the petitioner was posted at Mungeli since 2003. These are not the grounds for cancellation of the order of transfer of an employee. Transfer is an incklence of service. No person working on a transferable pcet can claim to be posted at a particular place. It is for the employer to see that wriio shoutet be posted where in the interest of better functioning of'the department as also in the public interest. It is the settled view of the Apex Court that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malaflde or extraneous considerations or is against any statutory Rule or Act, it cannot be interfered by a Court of Law. Learned counsel for the pelitioner could not point oirt any ground of malafide, extraneous consideratioris or violation of any Statutory Rules or the Act. tn view of the above, 1 am not inclined to admit ttiis peflUon for hearing. The same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has flled a representation dated 15.11.2007 and th^ may be directed to be disposed of by the concemed authority offhe State. There is no necessity to give any directton in this regard. The concerned authority of the State Is free to dispose of the representation in accordance with law. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^