Jj ^^ ;PETIT!ONER) Ashok Kumar Jaiswai, son of Shri Heeraial Jaiswat, aged about 36 years, Occupation Patwari, Halka No.28, Seepat, resident of Kapil Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Revenue Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, (C.G.) Raipur 2. Coilector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Gendram Kulmitra, S/o Shri Ramswaroop Kulmitra, aged abouf 32 years, R/o Patwari Halka No.28, Seepat, Tahsil Mssturi, District Bilaspur Shri C.J.K. Rao and Shri O.P. Sahu, Counsei for appellant. Shri V.V. S. MurtHy, Dy. Advocate General for the Stata^respondents No.1 & 2. the Court was passed "'*». .4 SSSK /T"""^ i l§S'Sa& 1 '% r'l •^a. ^•^.x" '"^EEE shvna ^- Writ Appeal No. 103/2009 Heardon admission. Being aggrieved with the order dated 19th March 2009, passed in VV.P.(S) No.1460/2009 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, appellant Ashok Kumar Jaiswal has filed this Writ Appeal. The appeilanfc/petitioner was transferred and posted as Patwari in P.H. No.28, Seepat, Tahsii Masturi, District Bilaspur by order dated 30.06.2008. Against the said order, respondent No.3 preferred Writ Petition (S) No.6358/2008, which was dismissed. Thereafter, a representation was filed by respondent No.3, which was decided by respondent No.1 by the .impugned order dated 18.2.2009 by amending the posting piace of the appellant i.e. P.H. NQ.28. This was challenged by the appeilant in the instant Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, reiterating the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and jt is for the emp!oyer to decide as to where a particuiar officer/employee be posted, keeplng in view pubiic interest as well as administrative exigency, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant argue that the decislon taken by respondent N6.1 was an outcome of maiafide and the Single Judge would have interfered in the order passed agalnst the interest ofthe appeliant. We do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. How the malafide is attributed has not been substantiated by the appeliant. Only by -saying that the order of transfer was maiafide, the same is not vitiated untii the malafide is substantiated bysome materiai on record. We do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal deserves fo be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself: Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha ^i Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge