^N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (81 No. 1493 of 2008 PETITIONBR RESPONDENTS Bhardawaj Sitigh, Aged about 35 years, S/o. Shri Raisijatan Sio.gh, R/o. Village Devipur, P.0. Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Thx'ough : Secretary, Department of Traiisport, Maiiti'alaya, D.K,S. Bhawaii, Raipur 2. The ConiBiissioner, Departoient of Traasport, Office at New Bus Staad Preniises, Paadri, Raipur, District Raipiir(C.G.) 3. The Additional Transport Coiimiissioner, Departoient of Tran.sport, Office at New Bus Staad Preiaises, Pandri, Raipur, Distdct Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearasace : Shri Anaad Kuiaai' Tiwari, counsel for tlie petitioiier. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for tlie State on advao.ee copy. ORAL ORDBR 107.03.2008) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard ou adimssion. The petitioner, who is holdiag the substaiitive post of Sub- Inspector ni tiie poUce department, is on deputation in. tlie transport. departoient By impugned orcler dated 1.3.2008 (Annexure-P/3) on adniinistrative exigency, he has been sent and posted from Check post- Bhagatdevad to Check post- ChiUi. Learaed counsel for the petitioner argues tliat ttie petitioner has been frequently displaced by tlie traB.sport depaitiiient, tlierefore, fhe iiapugned order is bad iii law. He submits tliat iii fact, tiie impugned onler dated 1.3.2008 Writ Petition (S) No. 1493 of2008 ^z (Annexure-P/3) is aa order oftraasfer which should be set aside by this Coiul, The traiisfer is aii iacidence of service, no person working on a tot'aasferable post caa niake his claim for postitig at a pai-ticular place. It is for tlie einployer to see as to who should be posted at which place, keepiag ui niiiid the better functioniiig of tlie department as also fhe public niterest, Unless fhe order of trmisfer is shown to be vitiated by aialalides or exti'aaeous cousiderations or it is shown to be passed agatnst aiiy statiit-ory Rule or the Act, nonzially such orders ai'e not to be iaterfered by a court. of lav^, is fhe settled view of tlie Apex Court in. inaay cases. In view of the above, I do not find aiiy reason to iiiteriere ia tlie order of tt'misfer of tlie petitioner, who holds tlie substaative post of Sub-Inspector m ftie poUce department. The petition has no inerit aiid the same is dismissed at fhe inotion stage itself, ——— — Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti