HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S] No. 4772i2010 PETITIONER Vinod KesharwanL Sic Shri (V Janakram Kesharwani, aged about 57 years, Occupation — Research Ofticer, Service, presentiy posted as Project Administrator, Integrated Tribai Development Project, Narayanpur (C.G.} VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh. through Secretary Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Depanment, Mantralaya. DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Collector, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.) Shri P.SA Ramteke. S/o not known to the petitioner, Occupation — Assistant Proiect Administrator, presently posted as Project lncharge Administrator, integrated Tribal Development Project, Narayanpur (C.G.) WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Chandresh Shsrivastava, Counsel for the petitioner. lVlr. R. Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDEB (23.08.2010) Heard. Petitioner Vinod Kesharwani is working on the post of Project Administrator, Narayanpur. By th impugned order dated 14.07.2010, he has been transferred from Narayanpur to ‘ Kondagaon. lt appears that on an earlier occasion i.e. on 20.02.2009, the petitioner was transferred from Narayanpur to e 2 WRIT PETITION (S) No. 477212010 @ Raipur and the said order was challenged by him in W.P.(S) No.1331/2009. The said petition came up for hearing before this Court on 20th of March 2009 and the same was allowed and the order of transfer of the petitioner dated 20.02.2009 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition) was quashed. It is stated at bar that the petitioner is working at Narayanpur since the year 2006.: Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is being transferred for accommodating respondent No.3. He refers to the order dated 22““ of July 201 0. Though learned counsel for the petitioner argues that ’the transfer of the petitioner is for adjustment of respondent No.3, but he could not substantiate this plea on the basis of the documents filed along with the writ petition. Transfer is an incidence of service. No person working on a transferable post can make his claim for posting at a particular place. lt is for the employer to see as to who should be posted at which place, keeping in mind the better functioning of the department as also the public interest. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Rule or the Act, normally such orders are not to be interfered by a Court of law, is the settled view of the Apex Court In many cases. Since learned counsel for the petitioner could net demonstrate that either the order is Vitiated by maiafides or extraneous considerations or that the same is passed against any statutory Rule or the Act, l am not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer dated 14.07.201 0. The petition has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.