frr' HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P. (S) Np. 6036 of 2007 PETITIONER L a Raghuveer Singh Thakur, aged about 45 years s/o Shri G.S.Thakur, R/o Q.No. 17, A Radhaswaxxu Nagar, Raipur(CG) Vcrsus State of ebliatdsgarh, Tbi-ough fhe Secretaiy Honie Departtnent, D.K.S. Bhawan, R£upur(C.G.) The Director General of Pdlice Govenuiient of C.G. Police I-Iead Qziarter, RajpurfCG) WRITi'EWTltOiaJNDERARriaL.E 226 QF THB CO»fSTIT1UnpN OF_!ND!A -;..,'•:•: .— Appearance: Shri Rrateek Sharaia, Counsel for the petitioner. ShriAjay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for fhe State on advaace copy. QRALORDBR (1Q.10.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on adruission. TIie petitipner, who is workiag on the post of Sub-Inspector, has been traasferred fi-om Economic Offences Wing, Raipur to Bastar Ran.ge by order dated 9th March, 2006. Leamed couasel for the petitioner subniits that after passiag of fhe order of trausfer, the laspector General of PoUce of Economic Offences Invest^afioii Bureau, Raipur has recoiiunended for canceUation ofthe transfer order of petitioner vide his ineino dated 16,3.2006 wifh an endorsement to the Home Minister oftfae State. Agaia on 14.12.2006, aaother reconiraendation was 'inade By fhe same • authority for cE(nceUati.on of ttie order of fhe petitioner(Aunexure P-5), but no actiou was taken on fhese 2 recomiueadations aad by aaofher order dated 31,5.2007 (Annexure P -6), the petitiQnerlias 6een reUeved ITOIII his preseiit place Qfpostias for joutmg to fhe transferred place. He submits that not tafcing aay .. i- WE.(S)No.6036/2007 <- action on such reconlmendations does not appear to be fair on the part of the Govemm.ent. When such high aufhority has recomTneiided for cancenation of the transfer order ofthe petitioner, it should Uave been considered by the Goveminent. Needless to say fhat fhese are not the grounds for interferm.g wifh fhe order of trausfer, passed by the cbiupetent authority. Traasfer is sin incidence of semce. No person workmg on a traitsferable pQst caa claim to be posted at a particular place. It is for the einployer to see that who should be posted where io. fhe interest ofbetter fiuictioniag ofthe departmentas also iil fhe public interest. It is fhe setfled view of fhe Apex Court that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by nialafides or extraneous consideration or is agamst any statutory Rules orAct, it caanot be iaterfered by a Court ofLaw. Leamed couiisel for £he petitioner could not pQint any ground ofnialafides, extraneous considerations or violatida of fhe provisions of any statutory Rules or fhe Act. Morepver, the traiisfer order was passed as back as oa 9th March 2006 aadthe petitioner is GhaBengiiig itbyfilmgfhispetitipnon 27.9.2007. I am not iuclined tp adiait this petitibn for furfher Iiearuig. The petition is disinissed. However, fhe petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation before the concenied aufhonty, raising the grounds regardiag previous recoHLmendations as also auy other ground avaUable tQ Tiim, which shall be considered by the said authority in ^- accordance wifh law at the earliest. _____—a—', Sunil Kumar Sinha i Judge sunlta