,,<-^ HIGH COURT OF CHNATT18GARH, BILASPUR W.P.(S)No.100W2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS J.P. Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Jagannath Agrawal. ag©dabout 57 years, Executive Engineer, Water Resources Dspar&nent, Korba, DistrictKorba(C.G.) Vwsus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2 Engineer in Chief, Water Resquirces Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3 Chief Engineer, Water Resqyrces Divjsion,811aspur (C.G.) 4 Superintendent Engineer, Water Resources Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 Rajaram Sarthi, Executive Engineer, HascSev Bairaj Division. Rampur/Korba (C.G.) 6 R.B. Shukla, incharge Superintendent Engineer. Shivnath Division, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 228 OF THE co^sTrruTSQM GFINDIA AppearaRce: Mr PrateN< Sharma, Counsel forthe petttioner. Mr. S.K.. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1to4. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Coun^el for re^pondent No.5. !lPneJor-r^(wndenLN^ ORALORDER (27.09.2010$ SUNIL KUMARSINHA. J. Heard flnally w^th tbe conserrt of counsel for the ^rties. Petitionep J.P, Agrawal was working on (he post of Executive Engineer, Water Resources DMsion, Korba Dtetrtet Korba (CG.)By the Impugned order dated 04.03.2010 (Annexyre P/1), he was transferred from Water Resources Division, Korba to Hasdev Bairaj Divjsion Rampur/Korba. The """•;..;;1 ^CS^C. /£^\j ^'?1 '•,~:'-.' ^' •'. :sy ''^•^Mf^s''tf €2^ W.P.(Sl NCT.1009/%010 petitioner challenged tlie ayoresafd order of hj^ transfer on the ground that he was transferred from Water Resources DMslon because, the petitjoner submitted a report relatlng to Jrregularitjes committed in implementation of Kanjmaulja Jates^ay YojRa, after conclucting due enqyjry against respond<?nt N06 and in this manner, the impugned order of transfer was an oytcpme of malafide A reply has been fited on behalf of the State/resppncjerrts 1 to 4. In para 12 of the reply, it has been contended by the State that the transfer of the petitioner was effected purely pn administrative grounds. The enquiry relstlng to jrreaularities committed !n implementatJQn pf Kan/msy^e Js/asftay yoy/?a and the incidence of transfer are two dlfferent matters and they cannot be co-related wjth each other. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner is working on atransferable post A perusal ofthe order of transfer dated 04.03,2010 (Annexure P/1) would show that the petitioner has been transferred from one local offfce to another local off»ce in the towhship of Korba jtself.It is stated at bar that the petitioner was ^ostfd in Water Resourcee Divjslon since last 8 months and the petitioner had conducted enquiry in the capaeity of the post, which he was holding, therefore; it cannot be said that the order of transfer of the petitlpner was an outcome of malafide on the basis of enquiry report sybm'rtted by the petitioner. Transfer is an incidence of servtee, no person working on a transferable post can make hjs clalm for posting at a particular place It js forthe employer tp see as to who should be posted at which place, keeping in mind the better functionjng of the clepartment as also the public interest Unless the order of transfer Is shown to be vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations or it js shown to be passed agajnst any statutory Rule or the Act, normally such W.P.fSI No.1009/2010 orders are not to be interfered by a Court of law, (s the settted view of tbe Apex Court in many cases. In the present case, no material has been filed to show that the petitioner has been transferred from one offioe to another office in the township of Korba pn the ground of malafide. When the State has come with a dear case thart there is no relation between the enquiry conducted by the petJtipner and the order of transfer of the pet'rtioper, »tc^nnQt b@ saicl that the malafide on the part of the State can be attrjbuted on account of the enquiry report sybmitted bythe ^titJaner. For the foregoing reasons, the petition Ss llable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna