^ HIGH COURTOFCHHATnSGARH,BILASPtiR W.P (S)No.4535/2007 PETITIONBR ^ 6 ;<G RESPONDBHTS 3. 4. Ashwaai Jaiswal, aged abbut 46 years, s/o S.S. Jaiswal, R/o New B-Type, Bodripara, Chinruri, Distt. Koriya(C.G). . Versus Soufh Eastera Coalfields Luaifed, through Chaimian cuin Maaaguls DireGtor, Seepat Road; Bilaspui .(C-:G) - , 1: ' •;.:".i.'.1 Deputy General Maaager (M/P, Maa Power) S.E.C.L., Seepat Road Bilaspur(C.G) Depuly Chief Persoruiel Maaager, Chtnmiri Area, Distt. Koriya (C.G): Deputy Gyief F'erScBancl Manager, RaigarhArea, Distt. Ra^aili(C.G) WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICtE 226 OF THE CONSnTUnONOFINmA Appea*ance; Shli Parag Kotecha, cpuiisel for the petitioneE^ (12.10.2007) • STOnLKUMARSraHA,.J. Heard onadnussion. . —' The petitiorier, who is workiag on the post -of ,C]erk, Gt^e-IIuitfaGrespondertts'oi^aruzatk>naiidwaStTaasfepcd;by order dated. 6-7th of Novemjber, 2006 Ironi Chiriiniri to Ra^arh. Uas:<;haUenged the legali^r0fthe said order. Learued counsel for flle petitkiiier a%ues that eariiej" tci this, aupther wtit petition toearmg no.l 193/ 2007 was filed by the petifioner chaUengBig tUe same prder, 'but fhe said petttion was dismissetl as withdrawh pn 28th af Feb. 20Q7. While disarissiiig tBe afoiesaid petitto^^ tias. direc'ted the respoiadent authDrities fo consider the representation dated W.P.(S) 4535/2007 10.11.2006 (Anaexure P-6) of thesaid pctition filed by the petitioner ia accordance with law wifhin. a penod of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Leamed eouiisel subicdts that the copy of fhe said order was filed before the competent aufhority on 12.3.2007 but the represeiitation has iiot been decided tfll date and a conteiupt petition has been filed by tlie petitioner agaiast fhe concemed auttiority, which is pending consideration. He subuuts that fhereafter the petitioner has fUed this second writ petitiou, On inerits leamed counsel submits fhat ftie traasfer of fhe petitioner has beeii effected against fhe poUcy of fhe S.E.C.L., accordjng to which, iffhe children of the eiaployee are to appear in the board exatniiiation fhen the transfer shaB not be effected tiU the m.0nfh of April of fhe current acadeinic session. Though fhis contention has been raised but no docuiaent to this effect has been filed alongwith the petition fhat is to say that no such poliey bas been filed along with fhis petition. He subniits that fhis poUcy was filed iu the earlier writ petition. Needless to say, fhese are not fhe grouiids foi a Court 6f law to iaterfere with fhe order of transfer passed by the coinpetent authority. Trausfer is an iacidence of service. No person workuig on a transferable post caa claim to be posted at a particular place.It is for fhe eniployer to see fhat whe .should be.posted where in fhe interest of better functioiuag of the departuient as also ui fhe pubBc interest. It is the setfled view of fhe Apex Court fhat unless fhe order of transfer is vitiated by inalalides or extraaeous consideratton or is against aay statutoiy Rules or Act, fhe saxne cannot be uiterfered by a Court ofLaw. Leamed counsel for ftie petitioner could not poiut out aay ground of inaJafide, extraneous consideratioris or viqlation of any statutory rules or fhe Act. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge