WritM Anneal No.275l2008 DB: 1i¢NTBLE$HRI SUNIL KU‘MAR§§N§A.§§ ENB G’LE SiiR! PETITIDNER APPELLA‘ i a RESPONDENTS l . P: SM.A H&R JJ. Kartik N arayan Soni, S,’ 0 Pama Lal Semi, Age about 51 years, ' O§ic5 of Executlvs Engilyier, P.W.D. Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CAL) Versus State Govt ot‘Chhattisgam, Undsr Sec retaxy, Public rk Department Minjsuy, D.K,S. Bhawan, Raipur (GGJ Executive Engineer, FEW. D. Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C. Li} WRIT {ll’PEALIJ‘NDQK §E§T imii 3 QFfl‘VH‘EwCiiEATIT¥$GARH \ Stata. Following order of §gnil Kumgx Sinha. J. \ wadmission. T vgsmzq gna CT 2005“.“ o m w A CQURT 'APPE‘AL Shn’ H.B. Agrawal, ’I‘amrakar, counsel tor the appellant. {emu Kishore —Bhadur.i, Additional Advocate General 101" the Senior Advooate with Ms. Rink)“ the Court was passed by HIGH CCTURT OF CHHAT“1‘I$GARH, BlLAaPUR T Wo f HEGE 2 W.A. No.275/2008 Appellant] petitioner — Karuk Naravan Soni has med this appeal against the order dated 10. 12.2008 passed by the learned , single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6900/2008, by which, his Wm‘t Petition, tiled against the order of rejection of tne representation for cancellation ofthe transfer order, has been dismlssed by tne learned $51'ngle Judge. The appellant was working as a Draftsman at Manasam uncl. By an earlier order, he was transferred from Mahasamund to Balod in the same capacity. The transter order Was chailenged by the appellant in an earlier writ petition bearing No.3921/‘ZOU8, which was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to decide the repiesentation of the appellant within a period of 2 weeks. Learned Senior Counsel for me appellant argues that thereafter, a representation was tiled and it was decided Vide order dated 20.10.2008 (ijled as Annexure P[1 in W.P.(S} No.b900[2008) and the same was rejected. He argues that the rejection of the representation was not proper. lt ought to have been allowed by the concerned authority, as the transfer of the petitioner was against the policy framed by the Government. ’I‘he learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition observed that the order (Annexure Pf l) was passed alter application ofmind by the concerned authority and there was no scope for interference in the order on such grounds. ‘ 'l‘ransl‘er is an incidence of service. No person working on a transferable post can claim to be posted. at a particular place. lt is for the employer to see that who should be posted where in the interest ot‘ better _functioning of the department as also public interest. It is the settled View of the Apex Court that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malalide or extraneous considerations or is against any statutory Rule or the Act, it cannot be interfered with by a Court of Law. lt appears that for these reasons, the earlier writ petition oi the appellant was dismissed and for his personal ditticultles, it was directed that he should make representation before the 5 W.A. No.275/2008 concerned authority As per the said direcuon, the appellant made a representation, which was dismissed by me concerned aumority aiter due application 01 mind. For the foregoing reasons, We do not find any scope for mterierence in the order passed by the learned Smgle Judge. The Writ Appeal has no merit. The same deserves to be and 1s accordingly dismissed at the monon stage ltself. Wrx r l a Sd/. R I Sunil Kumar Sinha 3 l ’\r E 7 ’fl T.P Shanna g Judge Judge l SW- ’