iOH CO'URT 0V CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUi Kuldeep Kujur, S/o Late Marlcus Kujur, aged about 36 years, Occupation Vaigyanik Adhikari (Scientist), Mobile Unit, Scene of Crmie, Am.bikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Sta.te of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretaiy Department of Home Affairs, Mantalaya, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, porensic Science Laboraton', Raipm- (C.G.) Collector, Surguja at Ainbikapur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF T3 ShriS.D. Siagh, Counsel for fhe petinon.er. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Paael Lawyer for fhe State. 'odtt Heard. The petitioner, who is working on tlie post of Scientist has been traasfeiTed from Sarguja Mobile Unit to Forensic Scieuce Laboratoiy, Raipur on adiuioistrati.ve grouiids vide order dated 25/1/2007. Leained couasel. for tlie petitioner submits tliat tiie traasfer has been affected against fhe Policy of tfae State, which says fhat only 10% of the total nuin'ber of eniployees should be transferred from. a particular cadre. On beillg potDitedly asked froia leamed counsel for tlie petitioner that sitice when fhe petitioner is working at Anibikapur, he siibuiits fhat the petitioner is workiag at Am.bikapur froin last 5 years. He also submits tliat fhe wife of the petitioner is workiag as Librarian iii a Local Institution and they have a child aged aboiit 2 '/2 years. E:i!: W.P.(S)No.5679of2007 So far as arguiaent pertaiaiiig to violation of the PoUcy is concei-aed, tlte sam.e cannot be eiitertaiaed as a ground tbr illterference with tlie order of ti-anster. Moreover, Uie PoUcy (Annexure P/2) aanexed witli ttie petition is a Policy pertainiiig to the yeai' 2004-2005. Leamed Panel La^vyer subinits fhat fhe new poUcy has been iata-oduced aad fliere are luaay chauges iu such PoUcy. As tar as grouiids regardiag wife aad husband workmg at a pailicular place and the personal difficult}- regai'ding a child aged about 2 l/a yeai's are conceraed, these are fhe personal ^rounds, which canaot be pressed iato niotion before a Court of law. Traasfer is an iacidence of service. No person workiug on a ti-ansferable post caii claim. to be posted at a paiticiilar place. It is for fhe eniployer to see fhat wlio should be posted where in fhe iitterest ofbetter functionmg oftlie depai'tm.ent as also in fhe public iaterest. It is fiie settled view of the Apex Court fhat unless fhe order of traasfer is vitiated by nialafides or extraaeous consideration or is agamst aiiy statutorv Rules or Act, it caiuiot be iaterfered by a Court of Law. In fhe present case, leamed couiisel for. the petitioner could not point out aay circuinstaiice to show fhat fhe oider of traasfer is vitiated by nialafides or extraaeous considerations or is against aav statutory Rules or ttie Act. I am not inclmed to entertam this petition on the grouiids pressed. The petition has uo laerit aad fhe same is dismissed at fhe m.0tion stage itself'. However, lookiag to the personal dif&culties of fbe petitioner, if so advised, tlie petitioner inay tile a repi^sentation before the concemed aufhorit}", who shaU consider aiid dispose ofthe saxne ia accoixlartGe wifh law at ftie earliest..,. „ -—• Sd/- sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Shyna