':i %1 (a ^ 1 s»<sa»i_i^^*"*ii asat'^i' ^ti" *s*s reiiiionei' Srnt. A Tirki, aged about 46 years, W/o Subrun Saya Tirki, A.N.M., Up Swastha Kender, Tahsil Khadgawa, Distt. Korea \/, 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Ministry of Health, D.K.S. Bhavi 2 Coliector, Korea, Baikunthpur 3 Chlef Medical and Heaith Officer, Distt. Korea (Baikunthpur) tA^—:-LSa^_JL:&:^.-^ „.„Ser Articie 22i .A-ni~iff'5ir?sr5r-,E»' Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. U.N.S. Deo.Go\/t. Advocate for the State on advance Ss l~.sii L?! IB3A£3 SER.'LJA E neara on aamission. Petitioner-Srnt. A Tirki is working on the post of A.N.M. By the impugned order dateu 28.7.2010 (Annexure-P/1), she has been transferrea' frorn Kliauyawa to Chieul (Janakpur) on administrative grounas. Learned counsel foc the petitioner subrnits that the husband of the petitioner is working as Assistant Grade-11 in Khadgawa and the daughter ofthe petitioner is mentally ill, therefore, it would be difficult for the petitloner to cornpiy the order of transfer. He refers to the policy of the Govemrnent that as far as possible husband and wife should be posteu at one piace or nearby places, so that they may perform thelr uuiies convenieniiy. On being pointedly asked from leamed counsel for the petitioner that since when the petitioner is working at Khadgawa, he fairly submits that the petitioner is working at Khadgawa since a very long period. It has not been uisputed before this Court that the petitioner is working on a transferabie post. Transfer Is an incidence of seryice, no person working on a transferable post can make his claim for posting at a particuiarplace.it is for the empioyer to see as to who should be ^'.•.••4 ':\:. W.P.(S)No. 4668 of 2010 ^ posted at -whic'n piace, keeping in mind the better functioning of the department as also the pubiic interest. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malafldes or exlraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Ru.Ie or the Act, normally such orders are not to be interfered by a court of ia'w', is t'ne settled view of the Apex Court in many cases. Leamed counsel for the petitioner could not make out a case either of rna'iafiues, or exlraneous considerations or violation of statutor/ Rules or t'ne Act Needies to say that the ground like husband and wife both working at same piace and the personal ground of itlness of the daughter are not the grounds on which an order of transfer may be interfered by a eoun OT iaw. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any substance in the writ petition. The petition is lia'oie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Looking to the grievance raised by the petitioner, she would be af liberty to Tiie representation 'oefore the concerned authority, vvhich may be considered and decideu by the said authority in accordance with law. Suw^^ 3ud6<