Jailal Sao, s/o Shri Nirmal Das Sao, aged about 49 years, presenfly working as Assistant Gram. Paachayat Officer, Pufka Janpad Paiichayat Saraipali, District Mah.asamund(CG) R/o Vfflage and Post Bansula Dista-ict Mahasain.uild(CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary Departinent of Paachayat and Rural Developaient DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur(CG) The Chief Executive Officer, Jaapad Panchayat Saraipali, district Mah.asaraund(CG) Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Panel Lawyer for the State on advance copy. (03.09.2007) The petitioner, who is working on fhe post of Assistaat Gram Panchayat Of&cer in Jaapad Panchayat, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, has been transferred fi-oiu fhe said place to District Dhamtari on fhe option of CIuef Executive OfEcer, District Paiichayat, Dhamatari on adiiunistrative grounds. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner subiaits the iinpugned order has been passed on 29.6.2007, but earlier to this another order dated 26.6.2007 was passed, by which, fhe petitioner was traasferred froin Saraipali to Dabhra, but after fhat fhe said 2 WP(S) No.5010/2007 order dated 29.6.2007 has been passed wifhoiit caiiceUuig fhe earlier order, therefore, it is a case ofinalafide. I have considered the point raised by learaed counsel petitioner and have also perused the two transfer orders. The earlier order dated 26.6.2007 shows fhat the petitioner was transfeired froin Saraipali to Dabhra aad fhe later oi-der dated 29.6.2007 also shows fhat he was transferred froin SaraipaM to Dhamtari, therefore, it caiinot be said tliat firstly fhe petitioner was traasferred froui Saraipali to Dabhra aad thereafter fi-om Dabhara to Dbamtari. Had it been fhe case like fhatjthe later order would have shown fhe place of.postm^ of fhe petitioner at Dabhra and fi-om tbe said place, Iie would have shown to be transferred to Dhamtari. It appears that after issuance of ttie earlier order, before its execution and unpleiiieatation, the subsequent order Iias been passed. This itself does not show aay expressed nialafide ia transferring the petitioner. In substance, fhe petitioner has been traasferred fi-oin Saraipali to Dhamtari on adnuiiista-ative ground and ao reasons have been shown to satisfy that eifher the order was passed on inalafides or it has been passed on extraneous considerations or ia aay inaaner, it is agaiast the Rules or Act appl.icable in case offhe petitioner. I do not find aay reason to interfere in the order passed on 29.6.2007. The petition is not worfh admission. The same is disinissed at tbe inotion stage itself. ____——— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sunita