— 'i ^ Kheiaiiram. Vishwakarma, Son of Shri Ramlal Vishwakarma, aged about 57 years, Revenue Inspector, Mahasamuud, R/o. Civfl Line Maliasainund, Talisfl and Distnct Mahasam.und (C.G.) 2 The State of Chhattisgarh Tbrough: Secretaiy Departrnent of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C..G.) Uiider Secretaiy, Departaient of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur {C.G.) The CoUector, Mahasaiaund, District Maliasamund (C.G.) Joiiit Collector, Mahasamund, District Maliasamund (C.G.) £ i?TT?fTI» Shri Raghvendra Pradhaa, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kaclihawaha, Govt. Advocate for the State, 011 advance copy. Heard. Bemg aggrieved with the order dated 21.07.2007 (Arm.exiu~e-P/ 1), by which the petitioner, who is workiag on tlie post of Revenue Inspector, has been traiisfer froiii Laiid Records Branch, Distiict Ofiice Maliasainuiid to Tehsil Saraipali oa adinuustrati.ve grounds, fhe petitioner has preferred fhis Writ Petition. Learo.ed counsel for the petitioner argTies fliat 33iaiiy times, Uie petifioner has been locaUy shifted in various offices iu ttie township of Mahasamuiid but this tfcme, he has been ordered to go on. traasfer froin Maliasauiuad to Saraipali. He also subinits tliat siace raaiiy local shiftiags were m.ade in tlie case of tiie petitioner aiid fhereafter, the petitioner has beea traasferred froia Mahasamund to Saraipali, therefore, fhis order is aa outcosie of laalafide. He further subniits tfaat when one -Ai.,.. .-• earlier local shiftiag order, passed by the Secretaiy, was not coiaplied, fhe petitioner had inade a representation to the Collector, which is also one of the reason that fhe petitioiier has been seiit froin Mahasaiaund to SaraipaU. I have considered the point raised by fhe leained couiisel for flie petitioner aiid have also perused the docuineiits filed along witli the writ petition. Earlier fhe petitioner was localhr shifted in various offices at Mahasainund itsetf and this time by order dated 21.7.2007, lie has beeii transfeiTed froia Maliasainiuid to Saraipali. On beiag pomtedly asked fi-oin leai-iied coiinsel for fhe petitioner that froin which date flie petitioner is posted at Mahasainund, he subinits tiiat tlie petitioner is posted at MahasamLind siiice 5.1.99. After considei-ing flie facts aad circuia.stances of the case aiid after perusal of ffcie records filed aloag with writ petition, it does not appear to me tiiat fbis order passed on 21.7.2007 after retaiiiuig fhe petitioner at Mahasainund for about 8 years, was passed on inala&de. TIie ground raised by tlie petitioner th.at the order vitiates by inalafide caiinot be accepted. The traasfer is aii exigeacy of seivice aiid Qobody posted/working on a tTEaisferable post csm claim. for his postin; at a pailicular place. It is for fhe einployer to see as to who should be posted at which place aad iinless tlie order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by inalafides or passed on exti'aneous considerations or is agaiast aiiy statutory Rule or the Act, it caiinot be interfered by a Court of law, is the settied view of fhe Apex Court, There appears to be no ground iii tlie writ petition for interfereace by this Court. The petition has no ineiits and fhe . same is disinissed at the inotion stage itself.____-—- Su">'^malsinha judge vatti