HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar, JJ. APPELLANT PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WritADpeal No. 312 of 2009 Tribhuwan Ram Verma S/o Trilochan Verma, aged about 45 years, Occupation Revenue Inspectors, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur C.G. 2. The Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dongarhgarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ^?^^^- (Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) ofthe Hiah Court of Chhattisaarh (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006) Appearance : Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate'for the appellanVpetitioner. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General, forthe State/respondents on advance copy. ORDER (29.10.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. (1) Heard. (2) Being aggrieved with the order dated 6 of October, 2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2778/2009 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellanVpetitioner has preferred this writ appeal. (3) By the said order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner against the impugned order dated 13.2.2009, whereby, the appellant has been directed to be attached to District Narayanpur in the same capacity from his present place of posting. '2S. Writ Appeal No. 312 of 2009 (4) The appellanVpetitioner is workingas Revenue Inspector and he is posted in the office of Collector, Land Record, District Rajnandgaon. By the impugned order dated 13.2.2009, the appellant and similarly placed 26 other persons posted in different Districts of the State, have been attached in District Narayanpur and have been directed to work under the control of Collector, Narayanpur until further orders. The appellant has not contended that the aforesaid attachment was either malafide or it was against the provisions of any Act or statutory rules. It is also not a case of extraneous consideration or singular treatment to the appellant because, as stated above, as many as 27 Revenue Inspectors have been sent on attachment to the said District for specific purpose of surveyof Abhujhmand area. Such incidents are common and unless they are statutorily prohibited, or they are covered under the above circumstance like malafide etc, they cannot be interfered by a court of law because it is the employer who has to decide that whose services are to be deployed at which place for the smooth and needful functioning ofthe department as also in the public interest. (5) In absence of challenge to the order on the above grounds i.e. statutory violation or malafide or extraneous consideration, the learned Single Judge has rightly taken the view that it was an incident of simple adjustment for specific purpose and has refused to interfere in the order. (6) We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (7) The appeal has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. -^L Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge vattl