l^. ,ff HIGHCOURT OF CHHATnSGARH. BILASPUR Writ PetitioalSt No.5225/2007 Petitioner Smt. Dayawati verma, w/o Late Shri Ramesh Prasad Verma, aged about 55 years, occupation Service, Supervisor, AIdkrit Bal Vikas Pariyojana Bastaaar, Sector KUepal Distt.' Bastar (C.G) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through fhe Secretaiy, Mahila Avam. Bal Vikas Tatha Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, D. K.S. Bhawan, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District, Raipur(C.G) 2. The Director, Malula Avain Bal Vikas Chliatdsgarh, Raipur (C.G) 3. The District Program Officer, Malula Avam Bal Vikas District Bastar 4. The Distnct Mahila Bal Vikas Adhikari District Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G) Writ petltion uader Article 226 ofthe Ctonstitutioa oflndta AppeEU'ance: Shri Subhash Yadav, counsel for the Petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Govt. Advocate, for the State/ respondents on advaace copy QRA1, ORDER (11.9.2007) SunilKumar Sinha, J, Heard on adinissiou. The petitioner, who is workuig ou the post of Supervisdr ia Ekikrit Bal Vikas Panyojana, Bastaaar, Distt. Bastar, has been ta^nsferred to Ekikrit Bal Vikas Padyojaaa, Charma, Distnct Kaaker on adiauiMtrative grounds. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner subinits fhat the petitiouer is a widow having two daughters aad her transfer from. Bastaaar to Charraa, would create great hardship to her. On being poiatedly asked iroia leamed counsel for the petitiouer that since wherL fhe petitioner is workicig at Bastanar, he submits tiiat the petitioner is workuig there from more fhan 3 years. " -.•!-- Rd0 Writ^>etitiori(SlNb.5225/2007 Transfer is an iucidenee of service. Np person workiag on a trartsferable post can claiiu. to be posted at a particular place. Itisforfheemployerto see fhatwho should be postedwhere in fhe iaterest of better funGtion of the department as also in the public interest. It is the settled view offhe apex Court fh.at unless fhe order of trausfer is visited by malafides or extraneous considerations or is against aay statutory Rules Qr Act, it caimot be iaterfered by a Cpurt of Law. The grounds raised by the leamed counsel for the petitioner are personal grounds on wluch fhe cdurts of law caanot entertam fhe petition agaiast fhe traasfer of aa employee, who is posted bn a traasferable post. In view of the above, I ain not uicHned tQ entertain fhis petitioa. Tbis petition has no nients and fhe same is disimssed at fhe motion stage. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge