u^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. AT Appellant Petffioner WRIT APPEAL N0. 2M of 2010 Mangturam Kunjam, Sto Samaruram, aged about 54 yeare, Posted as Btock EducaBon OfRcer, R/o Village Gcrtatola, PS Charbhato Tehai Chhuria, Disfc Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus Respondente 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of School Educatton DKS Bhawan, Raipur Dist. Raipur (CG) Collertor, Rajnandgaon, Dist Rajnandgaon District Educatton Officer, Rajnandgaon Dist. Rajnandgaon. Ramavtar Sahu, Btock EducaUon Oflteer, Chhuria, Dist. Rajnandgaon. Present: ShriHS Ahluwalia, counset for the appellant. Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORALJUDGMENT (3"fSeptsmber,2010) PerDftffendn Mishra. J That, the peUtioner is holding a substantive post of principal. He was posted as Block Educatton CTffeer, Chhurta, Distt. Rajnandgaon, from vrfiere he has been transferred to Rajnandgaon, vide oreler dated 15U1 Juty, 2010 of Annexure P/1 to be posted at the option of District Educadon Officer. The petitioner challenged the above fransfer order on the ground: (i) that by the said transfer order, respondent No.4, who is junior to him, has been transferred in his place, which is indicative <rf the fact that the transfer order has been passed malafidely with a purpose to accommodate respondent No.4; (ii) that by ttie transfer order, petiUoner's chances <rf promoSon to frie post of Dy. Direetor, Public InstrucUons, are likely to be affected as 100% p(JSts of Oy. Director, Public Instructions, are to be filted up by departmental promotion from present principal/equivatent poste and in case of inavailabiHty of able Asstt. Directpr/Block EducaUon Officer, ttie present ruta would be abolished and a person having five years' experience as Asstt. Dlrector/Bloek Education Officer will be eligible for the post of Dy. Direetor. Thus, by virtue of above transfer order, the petitioner woukl not be abte to complete five ^o years' experience as Block Education Offteer as per Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh School Education (Gazetted) Service Recruttment Rules, 2009 (in short "the Recniitment Rules, 2009"). It was also argued that ttie petiUoner has been transferred from his present place of posUng within a period of 2 % years, which is contrary to the transfer policy <rf the State Government. l-1eard leamed counsel for the appeltant and pemsed the order of teamed Singte Judge. So far as contention of the appellant Uiat his transfer order shall affect his chances of promofion as per Recruitment Rules, 2009 is concemed, from perusal of the said rules, we find that 100% posts of Dy. Director, Public Instructions, are to be filted up by departmental pronwtion of tfte present princjpal/equivalent post and only in case of inavailability of suteble candklates, Btock Education OfRcers wrift five yeare' experience may be posted as Dy. Directors. Since the petitloner is holding a substanflve post of principal and as such, eligible for conslderation of promotlon to the post of Dy. Director, we find no substance in the argument of teamed counsel for the appellant ftat the transfer orcter of the appellant witl affect his chanees of prom<rtion. Learned Singto Judge, considenng that the govemment employee does not have any vested right to continue on a particular post, at a particular place, and considering that transfer is an incidence of service and Uie Courts would normalty not interfere in bansfer mattere unless it is shovm to be vitiated by malaflde exlraneous consideration, has dismissed the petttion by the impugned order. We find that the order impugned has been passed by following the settled principles of law in the mattere of transfer. There is no substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is, accordingty, dismissed at the admission stege teelf. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge