HEGH CGURT OF CHHATTI§GARH EILASPUR‘ ‘ WRIT P§TITION ($) N0. 3882;201‘} PETITEONER J.P. AgrawaL Sfo Shri Bholaram Agrawai, aged absut 53 years, Gfficer Grade»l, Chhaftisgarh Gramin Bank, Controiiing Office, Raigarh (CG) VEQSUS RE$PONDENTS 1 Chairman/President, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bark, Head Office Recreation Read, Choubey Coiony, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Regionai Manager, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, R€giena§ Off§ce Nehm Csmp£ex, Vyapar Vihar, BHaspur (Ch‘haftisgar‘n) GenéraE Manager, Chhattisgam Gram'm Bmk, Commmng (Effice, Statian Road, Raigam (Chhaitisgarh) W§§? PEWTION UNDER ARTICL§ 223 $F THE CGNSTiTUTiGN Oi: !ND!A iA§pe&ral1Ce: Mr. KN. Nande, Counsei for the petitioner. cam. ORDER {93.4. 9.2m e) $UNEL KUMAR StNHAJ. Heard on admission. Petitioner JP. Agiawai is warking on ihe post of Officer Grade-i in Chha‘i‘iisgarh Gramin Bank, Raigari‘i. By the impugneij order dated 21 .G§.2i310, the petitioner has. been transfetred from Raigarh ta Bijaeur. Mr. Nancie submits that by an order dated 12.05.2016, the petitionet was transferred from Raigarh to Badenawapara, but the petitioner did not join at Badenawapara and he remained at Raigarh and thereafter, present order dated 21.09.2311“) has been issued. Hie Submission is that frequent orders of transfer have been issued against the petitioner. \‘ . (2X 2 WRIT PETiTlON {Si NG. $832010 On being paintediy asked from learned counse! for the petKioner that from when the petitioner is posted at Raigarh‘ he Submits that the petitioner ie posted at Raigarh since Auguet 2008. $ince the petitioner did not join at Badenawapara after issuance of eeriier order dated 12.05.2010, the impugned order dated 21 .0920“? cannot be said to be a frequent transfer order, as after joining at Raigarh in August 2008, the petitioner is being transferred on 2t .09201 0. it is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner is working on a ti'ansferabie post. Transt’et is an incidence of service. No petson wotking on a transferabie post can make his claim for posting at a particular piace. it is for the employer to see as to who shouici be posted at which place, keeping in mind the hetter functioning of the department as also the public interest. Untess the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by maiafides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Rule or the Actx normaliy such orders are not to be interfered by a Court of iaw, is the settled View of the Apex Court in many cases. For the foregoing reasons, l do not find any substance in the petition. The petition therefore is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- l {I SUNILKIMARSHVHA Judge