HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P. (St No. 7284 of 2007 PBTITIONER RESPONDBNTS 2 3. 4. Dr. Pritam Ram, S/o Late Chamru Ram, Aged about 49 years, Occupation - Block Medi<»lOf&ser (asst. sug.) Presently workiag at Conunuiuty Health Centre, Rajpur, Distnct Sui^uja (C.G.) Versus State of Chhatfcgarh, Through: Secretaiy Health, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) CoUector, District Suiyija (C.G.) Chief Medical Officer, Aiabikapur, District Siuyija (C.G.) Dr. Asarita Kachchbap, Medical Officer, Bhanpuri, District Baster (C.G.) WMT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COMS'nTUTIOM OF INDIA Appearance: Shri P.S. Koshy aad Shri Rakesh Jha, Coimsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumit Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State on advance copy. QRAjLORDBR (10.12.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, .J. Heard. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submit that fhe pettdoner, who is workiag on the post of Medical OfBcer has been transferred fiom Rajpur, District Sarguja to District Hospital, Jashpur on administeative grounds. On beiug poiatedly asked froin learned counsel for ftie petitioner that since when the petitioner is posted at Rajpiu-, ffaey subnut fhat the petitioner is posted at Rajpur siace long back Le. 12-15 yeara. W.P.(S)No.7284/2007 Leanied couasel for the petitioner submit tbat son of the petitioner is studying ia CJass-XII and the order of transfer may adversely affect Ids studies. They submit that afleast fhe petitioner inay be retained at Rajpzir till fhe fiaal examlnation of Class-XII is over. These are not fhe groiuids to iaterfere wifh au order of transfer by a Court ofLaw. Transfer is an incidcnce of semce. No person worfcmg on a teansferable post can claim to be posted at a particidar place.It is for the employer to see that who should be posted where in fhe interest of better ftmctioning of the departmeBt as also ia the pubUc interest It is tbe settled view of the Apex Court that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by inalafides or extraneous eonsaderation or is against aay statutoiy Rules or Act, xt cannot be interfered by a Court of Law. In tlie present case, learued counsel for the petitioner could not point out aay circuinstaacc to sliow tbat fhe order of teansfer is vitiated by inalafides or extraaeous considerations or is agaiast aay statutoiy Rules or tfae Act I do not find any reason to iuterfere wifh fhe order of transfer. The petition has no inerit aad fhe same is dismissed at fhe niotion stage itself. However, siuce fhe petitioner is praying for his reteation tffl March - April 2008, which is fhe acadexnlc education session, he inay file a representatiou before the concemed aufhorily in tbis reganl and (he conceraed authorily shall dispose of ffae same ia accordance with law keeping in raind the specific exigency raised by the petitioner. _„ - Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge Shyna