1. Lf HIGH COURT OP CSHHATnSOARH. Ka.WSPVR W.P.tSI Mo. 6070 of 2007 PETITIONER Shyam Kartik Gupta S/o Shrichand Gupta, Aged about 43 years, Lab Assistant, Govt. Higher Secoudary School, Pali, Block - Pali, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT8 1. State of CliIiatUsgarh, TIirough: Under Secxetaiy Tribal WeUare Dcpartinent D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur, Dist: Raipur Chliattisgarh 2. The Cominissioner, Tribal Wclfare Department, Chhattisgarh Govenunent Raipur 3. Assistant CoiBanissioner, Tribal Welfare Dcpai'taiient, Distt; Koi-ba (C.G.) WRTT PETITIOB UMDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSnTUION OFINDIA Appearance: Shri Anfl Su^h Rajput, coiuisel for the petitioner. Ms. Siuiita Jain, Panel Lawyer for ttic State on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (10.10.2007) 8UHIL KUMAR 8INHA, J. Heard on adnussion. The petitioner, who is worteing on fhe post. of I^ab Assistemt in Govt. Higher Secondaiy School , PaU, District Korba has been transferred from the said place fo the office of Block Education Officer Wadruf Nagar, District Saiyija by order dated 7.7.2007 (Aniiexure-P/1). EarUer to this petition, the petitioner has challenged this orier by filing a Writ Petition (S) No. 4760/2007, which was disposed of on 17.8.2007 pennitting to withdraw the petition on the gmund that t1ie representation of the petitioner was pending with the concemed authorily. Leamed couosel for the petitioner aiyies that thereafter a fresh representation was filed on 24.8.2007 (Annexiire-P/4) birt fhe said representation has not heen decided and the petitioner has heen relieved and a tiine forjoinmg upto 11.10.2007 has been given to the pctitioner. Th.is tiinc, he is pressjng fhis petition on WPfS) 6070 of 2007 ) J1 merits. His siibinission is that the petitioner should not have been traasferred out of District aud accordiag to circiilar dated 13til June, 2007, the traasfer of fhe petitioner should have been affected wifhin the District by the concemed Collector. He shows me the policy dated 13.6.2007. f have considered the at^uaient advanced by fhe leanned counsel for fhe petitioner. I^eamed counsel for th.e petitioner could not show nie any provisions, wliich may probibit the transfer oftttc enaployee like petttioner out of District. So far as the provisions of policy dated 13.6.2<X)7 is conceraed, it onty says that. when the transfer of Class-III & TV employees are affected witliin DistTict, the orrters can be passed by fhe CoUector and nofhing more. This does not mean fhat for the transfer afFected out of District, the oider cannot be passed by the conipetent anthorily. The ai^iunent advanced t>y leamed counsel for the petitioner is totally inisconccived, which cannot be accepted. The transfer is an exigency of service and notoody posted/working on a transferaUe post can claim for his postixig at a particular place. It is for thc einployer to see as to who should be posted a.t which place. Unless tfte order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by taalafides or passed on extraneous coasiderations or it is issued against any statiitoty Rule or Aet, it cannot be interfered by a Court oflaw, is the settfed view ofthe Apex Court. Leamed coiuisel for the petitioner could not point out any ground of inalafides or extraneous considerations or order of transfer being against any statutoiy Rule or Act. The pctition has no merit, the same is Kahte to be disinissed and is accordingly disniissed. -~^ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti 1 /