(-* in HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH, BIIASPUR WJP. (81 Bo.6329/2007 PETITIONER 2. 3. 4. Balchand Namdeo, s/o Mr. Panna Lal Namdeo, aged about 59 years, Occupation Revenue Inspector, Posted at CoUectorate (Land Record Brauch) Durg, attached at TahsU Office, Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G) Versus State of Chhatdsgarh, Through the Secretary, Departnient of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Dircctor, Laad Records Chhattisgarh, Raipur(C.G) CoUector Dui^, District Dui^ (C.G). Coininissioner, Land Records, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONST!TUT!ONOFmD!A Appearance: Shri Saurabh Dangi, Counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Dy.Govt. Advocat, for fhe State/ respondents nos. 1 to 4 on advance copy. ORAL ORDBR (03.11.2007) SUNILKUMAR SIiSHA, J. Heard on adudssion. Petitioner is aggrieved with fhe order of posting dated 09.8.2007 by which he has been posted to the Office of CoUector (Land Records) Kabiniham. Leanaed couusel for the petitioner argues that fhe petitioner is presenfly working ia fhe ofiSce of CoUector (Land Records) Durg and about one year is left for his retirenient, therefore, such posttag which amounts transfer should be caaceBed. On fhe ofher haad, learued State Couiisel referring to para-1 of fhe iiapugned order ar^ues that it is not a case of tra&sfer but it is ^ simply a posting for one year on the grouiid of preparation of new inaps of certain villages which have been desta-oyed. Therefore, this is special postiag. •L- ^ W.P. (S( No.6329/2007 Looking to the contents of fhe order (Aiuiexure P-1) which, ia fact, is not a traasfer aad it is simply aa arrangeinent on account of ass^ument of sonie im.portant work; I ain aot iuclined to adinit fhis petition for heariag. This petition is dismissed at fhe niotion stage itself. Sd/- ! SunilKumarSinha Judge -•'\