^^ \u^ <30 s- 4-^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P. (8) No. 8477 of 2007 PETITIONER Ramesh Dhar Diwan aged 49 years, son of Stui Ramkhilawaadhar Diwan, Ltae Pancharak grade-2, Class IV eiaployee, office of Executive Engineer(Saacha Samdba) Division-1, Dure CIihattisgarh State Blectricity Boaxd, Durg, TahsU aad District Dui^(CG) Versus RESPOHDENTS 1. The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Through fbe Secretaiy, Chhattisgarh Stete Electricily Board, RaipurfCG) 3. Divisional EngineerfSancha Saudha) Dndsion No.l, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Durg, Tahsfl and District Dui^(CG) WRIT PETITIOB UHDER ARTICLE 826 OB* THE COHSTITCIOS OF INDIA Sbri Ajay Shrivastava, coiinsel for the petitioner. OEtAL ORDBR. (13.11.2007) SUBIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on adinission. The petitioner, who is workiag on fhe post Line Paricharalc in C.S.E.B., Division Dui^, bas been transfeiTed to Aaihikapiir. I^eamed counsel for tiie petitioner argues that as per the circuJar dated 30th August, 1997(Aimexure P-2), Class-rV eiaployees like petitioner are not to be JTaTisfBn-ed out of the district. Secondty, be argues that if the tfansfer of the petitioner is afFected, it. inay affect his seniority becaiise tbe seniorily of tbc eiaployees like petitioner is inauitained division-wise. I have considered the arguraents advanced by leai'aed counsel for the petitioner. So far as fhe first arguiaent is concemed, circular dated 30th August, 1997 does not iinpose a coinplete bar against the transfer, ,'S!Si!SW!»^~WBCS«W&-SB «i*'W,-. 2>\. W.P.<S).No.6477/2007 It. says that generally sucti transfer is not to be affected,that means in the special circumstaiices, such transfer can be affected. Therefore, tlus cn-culaT is not helpfiil to the petitioner. As far as the seniority of flie petitioner is concemed, the petitioner has not filed any such docuinent, which may show that his ti'ansfer would adversely affect his seniority, if he is posted at the transfen-ed place. The transfer is an incidence of service. Nobody working on a transferable post caa claitu for his posting at a particular place. Who should be posted where is to be secn by tlie employer whjch depends upon ttie adniinistrative exigency as also on public interest. Unless the order of tiansfer is shown to be vitiated by inalafides, exteaneous considerations or is shown to be passed against any statutoiy rute or tlie Act, the same cannot be mterfered with by a Court of law, is the settled view of fhe Apex Coiirt. Learued counsel for the petitioner coiild not point out auy such ground ofinalafide or ofexti-aneous coasideiation or tliat the orier has been passed agaiust any statutory rule or the Act Por the foregomg reasons, l am not inclined to admit this petition for hearing. The petition is not worth admission. The same is dismissed at the motion staee itself. Sd/- Sisnil KumarSinha Judse sunita r