HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BIIASPUR »• PBTITIONBR W.P. (S) No.7465 /2007 Rejendra Kuiaar Netam., s/o Shri Sulchdev Siagh Netam, age about 47 years, Deputy Director Regional Traiaing Institute, Woiaen Se, Chiid Welfare Departiaent, District Bastar(CG) Versus Jagdalpur, RESPONDENTS State of Ghliattisgarh, Through fhe Secretaiy, Women 8& Chfld Wetfare Department, Maiitralaya, Raipur (C.G.5 The Director, Women & Child WeUare Departiaent Directorate Raipur(CG). Smt. NaUni Sori, District ProgTairuae Oflicer, Women & Chiid Wetfare Department, Dautewada(CG5 WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLS 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearaace: 2 3 Shri Santosh Bharat, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumit Venna, Panel Lawyer for fhe State on advaace copy. (19.12.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on adinission. The petitioner, who is workiag on fhe post of Dy. Director, has been traasferred froin Jagdalpur to Sarguja. On being pointedly asked froni leamed counsel for the peutioner that siace when the petitioner is at Jagdalpur, he submits fhat fhe petitiouer was iaitiaily brought to Jagdalpiu- on 16.6.2003 and after one proiaotion, he was retaiued at Jagdalpur by order dated 13.12.2005 and ia this manner, he is posted at Jagdalpur siace 16.8.2003 itself. Leatned counsel further subinits fhat siace children of fhe petitioner are studviag ia local WP(:S) No.7465/2007 institution, fhis traasfer is gomg to aflect adversely on their studies. These are not fhe grounds to iaterfei^ with aa order of ta-aasfer by a Court of Law. Traasfer is aa incidence of service. No person workuig on a transferable post cari claun to be posted at a particular place. It is for fhe employer to see that who should be posted where ia fhe iaterest of better functioniag of tbe departnient as also pubMc interest. It is the settled view of the Apex Coiirt that unless the order of traasfer is vitiated by malafides or extraneous consideration or is against aay statutory Rule or Act, it cannot be iaterfered wifh. by a Court of Law. In fhe present case, leamed counsel for the petitioner could not poiat out aay circuiastaace to show that tiie order of transfer is vitiated by mala&des or extraneous considerations or is agaiast aay statutory Rule or fhe Act. I do not find any reason to intertere with the order of traasfer on such groiuid. However, fhe petitioner inay file a representation before fhe conceined aufhority showiag his grievaace, which xaay f^ ^T^ . be disposed of/the said authority ia accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, this petition staads finaUy disposed of. ——•—- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Swwlo^