^..,\^ Y<?)||||C>/ W.P. (Si No.6576/2007 Devendra Kuinar Venua s/o Shri C.P.Venna, aged about 40 years R/o Pendra Tau. Gaurela(Pendra Road), DKtri.et Bilaspur(CG) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Seci^tary, Agriculture(Fisheries) Departinent, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 2. Director, Fisheries Departm.ent, Govt. of Chhatdsgarh, Raipur(CG) 3. Shri Rajendra Prasad Paadey s/o not kuown, Assistant Directore, Fisheries Departiaent Rajnaudgaon District Durg. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA Shri M.K.Sinha, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sati.sh Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for fhe State on advance copy. $15.11.200?) SUNILKUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Fisheries Inspector, has been ta-ansferred froin Marwahi (Bilaspur) to fhe office of Assistaut Director (Fisheries), Dantewada on adniiaistrative grounds. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner argues fhat fhis order has been affected to acconunodate respondent No.3, who was earlier traiisfen-ed froin Rajnandgaon to Jagdalpur and amendiag fhat order, he has now been transterred to the place of fhe petitioner. He subinits that fhis ainounts to inalal&de on the part of fhe Goverrunent. He secondly argues fhat the petitioner has been recenfly operated ia ApoUo Hospital, Bilaspur for excision of fhe W,P,N@576/20Q7 3? •Cu^ ^i fs <%-- gatl bladder; fherefore, it would not be good for his healfh, if he is sent to Dantewada from Bilaspur. So far as the first ground regardiag inalafide is coucemed, inerely on fhe ground that fhe earlier order of respondent No.3 has been amended aad he is being brougtit to fhe place of ffae petitioner, it caanot be said fhat fhe traasfer of fhe petitioner is malafide because it was doae to adjust respondent No.3. Malafide caiLaot be ^afhered on fh.e vague allegations like the present one. The specific allegations for it have to be uiade in the petition and that should be supported by reasonable prim.a facie evidence. So far as ffae health gi'ouud is conceraed, fhis is not a gi'oiuid for a Court of law to iuterfere wifh the orier of traasfer of an einployee, who is holding a traasferable post. On beio^g poiiitedly asked from learued counsel for the petitioner ttiat stuce when the petitioner is posted at Marwahi, Bilaspur, he subiuits fhat the petitioner is posted fhere since ftie yeat- 2005. Transfer is au incidence of service. No person working on a transterable post can claim. to be posted at a particular place. It is for the einployer to see tiiat who should be posted where ia tihe iaterest of better functioniag of fhe department as also public interest. It is the setfled view of fhe Apex Court fbat iinless fhe order of traasfer is vitiated by nialafides or extraaeous consideration or is against auy statutory Rule or Act, fhe sanie cannot be interfered wifh by a Court of Law Leamed counsel for the petitioner could not poiat out any such ground of inalafide or of extraaeous consideration or fhat fb.e order has been passed against auy statutoiy rule or the Act. In fb.e facts aud circuiustaaces of fhe case, 1 do not fiind any reason to iiiterfere wifh fhe order of traasfer of fhe petitioner. The petition is not worfh adiuission. The same is disinissed at fhe motion stage itself. ; Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Bi^n