sk m? CHSG ILPU maggg Ego. 5519 9i 200:7 Ramash KHmar Tripathi Sio Late Kaipnath Tn'pathi, Agerl about 39 years, R/o Q. No. 11, Stmet N0. 13/A R. Vasuridhara Nagar, Bhilai — 3 Tah. Pataxl, District Durg (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chbattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Departnent of Higher Education. Mantralava, D. K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt-Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commisgsioner, Directorafe of Higher Education, Gav. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur 3. Collecfor, Burg (CG) 4. Principal, Govt COHEge, Aljunda, Distt. Durg (CG) 5. Pn'ncipai, Dr. KB. Govt. RG. CQHege, Bhl'iai— 3, District Burg (CG) 6. Lalit Prasad Verma, Sports Omcar) Govt. Coilege, Aijunda, District Burg (CG) PETITIONER WRIT PETITIGN UNDER ARTICLE 2.26 OF THE CONSTI'NH‘IGN 9F IED!A Presence : Smt F‘ouzia. Mir7a, couhsei for the petiticner. Shri Satish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advecate for the State on advance ccpy. cRAL GREER (16.11.2007; SUHIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admiSsion. The petitioner, who iS Working on the post of Sports Officer, has been transfen‘ed from Bhiiai, District Durg to Arjunda, District Durg by order dated 25.10.2607 (Annexure- P/ 1). Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the daughter of the petitioner is studyillg in Class 12th, therefore, if the order of traiiefei" is effected. it may affected the studies of his daughter. She also argues that the petitioner was . transferred to Bhiiai on. 30.6.2006 and just after a period of one. K i year, he has heen ti‘an stewed to Aijunda. i HIGH ca? HATTIARH AT BASR @ 2 W.P.(S) N0. 661 9 of 2007 So far as ground of daughter studying in, local instituh'ou, that is not the graund fol" a cmn‘t of 13w t6 intenfera with the order of transfer. The second ground is that the petitibuer has haen fransfenwd just after one year also times: not give any'right to file. writ potition, unless, it is shown that the. order has been passed on maiafide. The transfer is an incidence. of service. Nobody Working on a transforahle post can ciaim for his posiing at a particular place. Who should ha posted Where is to he, seen by the employer which depends upon the administrative exigency as also public interest. Unless the order of transfer is shown. to be vitiated by malafides, extraneous considerations or is shown to be passed against any statutory rule o1” the Act, the same cannot be interfered with by a Court of law, is the settled View of the Apex Court. Learned coun sel for the petitioner could not point out any such ground of malatide or of extraneous consideration or that the order has been passed against any stamtoiy rule or the Act. l do not find any mason tointerfere with the order of transfer of the petitioner on this ground. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed at the motion. stage itself. Sd/. Sunil Kumar Sinhw Judge