HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR w.p. {s3 No. 5088 of 2007 PETITIONER RESPGNDENTS 1 Amrit Kumar Tigga, son of Shilvanush Tigga, aged about 45 years, Assistant Woman and Chiid Dsvelopmant Extension Oiiicer, Rajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Womaxl and Child Welfare and Sociai Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Director, Department of Woman and Chad Welfare, Sanchnalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Collector, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. District Programme Officer, Department of Woman and Child Welfare, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. District Woman and Child Development Oiiicer, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh‘ Project Odicer, Rajpur, Block Rajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ART!CLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTXON OF INDIA Appearance: Shri KN. Nande, counsel for the petitioner. Ku. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (06.09.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. The petitioner, who is presently working on the post of Extension OEcer\W0mw and Child Development, Rajpur, has challenged the validity of his transfer order dated 31.7.2007 2 $% WP(S) No.5088/2007 (Annexure-P/ 1), by which he has been transfgrred from Project Rajpur, District Surguja to Project Kartala, District Korba on administrative grounds. Learned counsel for the peu'tioner argues that it has been mentioned in the transfer order that the order is being issued for Assistant Project Onicer, which is a promotional post, Whereas the petitioner is an Extension Officer. He also submits that in the last part of endorsement, designation of the petitioner has been shown as Sahayak Pan'yozna Adhikan', whereas he is not holding the said post. On this ground, he prays for quashing of his transfer order. This does not appear to be a reasonable ground to interfere with the order of transfer. There may be many reasons for it. It may be that by mistake, the designation of the petitioner has been shown as Sahayak Pariyozna Adhikart‘. Unless the order of transfer is shown to, be Vitiated by malatides or passed on extraneous considerations or is against any statutory Rules or the Act, it cannot be interfered by a Court of law, is the settled View of the Apex Court. I do not find any reason to interfere in the transfer order of the petitioner on this ground. The petition has no merits, the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, looking to the error pointed out in the order, the petitioner is free to file a representation before the concerned authority, who may clariiy the situations accordingly. vatti Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha 1 Judge ,