(.; :>/' HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (St No. 6476 of 2007 PETITIOHER Ramesh Das, S/o Shri David Das, aged about 58 years, resident of Sunga, Tahsil- Siutga, District RaipurfCG) Versus RESPONDEHTS 1. State of C,G., Thi-ough- Secretaiy, Department of School Education, (Mantralaya), DKS Bhawaa, Raipiir(CG) 2. Distnct Education Officer, Raipur(CG) 3. Block Education Officer, Block-Simga, District Raipur(CG) 4. Surendra Tamrakar, resident of Simga, Tahsil-Simga, Distdct Raipur(CG) WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 826 OF THB COBSTITUIOS OF IHDIA - Shri Vireadra Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Paael Lawyer for fhe State c'a. advance copy. ORAL ORBBR (13.11.20071 SUKIL^KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. The petitioner, who is working on ftie post of Assistant Teacher, has heen transfeiTed froin Priniary School, Awa.nethi to Middle School, Bahgun on adinmistrative grounds. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argues that wife of the petifioner is also working as an Assistant Teacher at Simga and it is tlie policy of the State govemment that as far as possible, husband and wife shoiild be kept at the same place. He ai^ues fhat t-he husbaud has taeen transfen'ed, but. no order of transfer has been issiied for the wife. Secondly, he argues tiiat the transfer has been affected at the behest ofrespondenLt No.4 herein, who is a local poUtician, therefore, it is a raalafide transfer. I Tiave considered flie grounds i-aised by leai-oed counsel for tJie petitioner. So far as placeiaent of husband and wife at one place is conceraed, it is a matter to be considei-ed hy the department itself. It. is not the statutoiy provision, which can be enforced in a court of law. As far as the transfer bemg malafide at the Tiehest of W.P.fS).No.6476/2.007 respotident No.4 is concemed, leamed counsel for the petitioner conld not point. out any instance to show tbat in fact, the transfer was afFected at the beTiest of respOQdeBt No.4 aad it was a malafide traasfer. On being pointedly asked ft'mn leamed counsel for tlie petitioner tliat since when the petitioner is posted at Awarethi, he submits that tlie petitionier is posted there since the year 1985. The traasfer is an incidence of seivice. Nobody working on a transferable post can claim for his posting at a particular p1ace. Wbo should be posted wtiere is to he scen by the employer which depends upon tAe artininistTative cxigency as also in public interest. Unless the order of ti'ansfer is shown to be vitiated by inalafides, extraneous consideratjons or is shown to be passed against any statatoiy rule or the Act, the same cannot be interfered wit.h by a Court of law, is the settled view of the Apex Coiirt. Uarned counse.1 for the petit-ioner cou1d not point out any such ground ofmalaficie or ofextraneous coiisicteration or tJiat the order has beeu passed against any stataitoiy rule or the Act. 1 do not fiiid any reason to interfere witti the impugned order of ttansfer of the petitioner. The petition is not worth admission. The sauie is dismissed at the motion stagc itself. Sd/- ju8ge B?ta ,/"".-^