Soni Lal Shrivastava, s/o late Shyam Lal Shrivastava, aged about 49 years, At present resident of Jail Liae, Jagdalpur, Permaaent resident of viUage Sendri, P.S. Pafhariya, Tahsil MungeU, District Bilaspur (C.G) State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary Department of Hoine (Jail), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiir (CG) Jail Maliaiurikshak, Jail Mukhyalaya, Raipur, Talisfl & Distt. Raipur (C.G). Jail Superintendent, Centa-al Jail Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (C. G). Onkar Prasad, Prahari, Sub-jail Daatewada, Distt, Dantewada (C.G) V-/ Shri Gautam Khetrapal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashutosh Siagh Kaclihawaha, Govt.Advocate witll Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 3 on advaace copy. Heard on admission. The petitioner, a Jail Prahari has been trausferred froin Central Jafl., Jagdalpur (Bastar) to Sub-jail Daiitewada (Soufh Bastar) by fhe impugned order dated 07.07.2007 (Annexure P-1). Learued counsel for Uie petitioner submits fhat a representation of fhe petitioner is pending before the concemed aufhorities since 2004 (Annexure P-3), in which fhe petitioner has prayed for his traasfer to Raipur area, but wifhout considering his ^ representation, he has been transferred from Jagdalpiir to Needless to say, fbis is not a grouiid for iaterferuig with aa order of trausfer. The transfer is aa exigencv of semce and fhe person who is workmg on a transferable post caiuiot insist his traasfer to a particular place. It is fhe ouflook aiid discretion of the einployer to see as to which person shall be posted at wbich place for better functioniug of fhe department concenied. The transfera can only be interfered when tliey are chatlenged on fhe groitad of Tnalafides, extraueous considerations or when. they are inade aganist flie Act or the Riiles applicable iu case of particular eniployees. Since no such gTounds have been argued before this Court pertamixig to the said traasfer of fhe petitioner, I do not fiad it appropriate to iaterfere with the order passed by fhe coacemed auth.ority vide Aruiexure P-1. There appears to be no merit ia fhis petition. It is not worth admissioa and is accoidiagly disinissed at fhe niotion stage itself. However, lookiag to tlie contents of fhe represeatations Aanexure P-3 & P-4, it is oidered and directed that ifthese representations have not been decided tiU date, fhey shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of production/receipt of certified copy of ttiis order along-wifh a copy oftlie wiit petition aiid the result shaU be communicated to fhe petitioner. ~--——--——— Sd/- ;.c. as per rules. „ ., ^~~ _ _, <-,;_ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao