HIGH COIIRT OF CHHATnSGARH, BILASPUR W.P.tSt No. ®08Sof 2007 PETITIONBR Ramnath Kosle, s/o Shri Mansharam Kosle, aged about 59 years, Principal, Oovertunent Higher Secondaiy School, Sargaon Block Pathariya, Distt, BUaspur, R/o Bhojpuri, TahsU Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G). Veisvs RESPONDBNT8 1. State of Chhattisgarh, fhiough fhe Secretaiy, Department of SclLool Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G). 2. The District Educatiou Officer, Bilaspur, Clihatdsgai'h (C.G) WRIT PETITION UHDBR ARTICLE 236 OF THE COBSTITUION OF INDIA Api?sa?Mice: Shri Rajeev Shrivasteva, counsel for the petitioner. Ku. SunitelJani, Panel I-«awyerappears for thc State/ Respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (15.10.2007) SUmL KUMAR 8IHHA. J. Heard. The petitioner who is working on the post of Principal m Govemment Higher Secondary School, Sai^aon, Block Patharya, Distt. Bilaspur, has been transferred to Govemment Higher Secondary School, Loharsi, Distt. Bilaspiu- on adnauiistrative groiinds. I^camed connsel for the petitioner argiies that fhough fhe petitioner has been transferred feom Sargaon hut no body has been posted at Sai^aon. He also argued that the date ofbirth of the petitioner is 07.7.1948, tie is to retire. on 31.7.2010 and on accouat of his old age, he is not kceping good healfh. On being pointedly asked from thc leamed counsel for the petitioner that W.P. (S) No.6085 of2(K)7 since when the petitioner is working at. Sargaon, he fairly subnuts that the petitioner is worteing thcre since 03.7.2003. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties aad after going tlirough the contents of the writ petition, I ani of fhe opinion that these are not the grozinds for interfering wifh the order of transfer by a court of 1aw. AdinittRdly, the transfer is an cxigcncy of servicc and noliody working on a transferable post can claiin for his posting at a particular place. It is for fhe employer to see as to who should be posted at which place. UrLless tlie onler of transfer is shown to be vitiated by inalafides or passed on extTaneous considerations or it is issued against any statutory Rule or Act, it cannot. be uiterfered by a Court oflaw, is thc setfled view ofthe Apex Court. So far as the old age and not kee.ping good health are concemed, these are the grounds on wliich the em.ployer inay consider a particular case in Ught of their policies Irained. Tn view ofthc ahove, tliis petition is disposed ofatfhis stage. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to ffle representation before the concemed authorily which shaU be decided in an ohjective inanner hy the said authorily keeping the grounds raised by fhc petitioner, in accordance wjth law. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge