Vimal Kumar Gautam, Aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Narmada Prasad Gautam, Presently posted as Senior Horticulture DevelopBaent Oflicer, Pendri, District Rajnandgaon , R/o Goveminent Garden Rajnan.dgaon, District Rajnaiidgaon (Chliatdsgarh) 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Departaient of Agriculture, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (Chliattisgarh) Director, Hordculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Assistaat Director, Horticulture Departtnent, District Rajnaiidgaon (Chhatdsgarh) Khushal Upas Rao Ghode, S/o Shri Upas Rao Ghode, Aged about 53 years, Posted as Senior Horticulture Developinent Officer, Pendri, Distnct Rajnaudgaon, R/o Goveminent Garden, Doagargarh, District Rajnaadgaon (C.G.) Shri Varun Shanna, couusel for the Petitioner. Shri Sati.sh Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the Sta.tc. (12.12.2007) ,J. The petitioner, wlio is workiag on fhe post of Senior Horticulture Developinent OlBcer, Pendri, Distdct Rajnaadgaon has been traasferred to Daatewada on adiuiaistrative groiuids W.P.(S) No.7341/2007 aad respoadent No.4 is being brought to the place of the petitioner. Learaed counsel for the petitioner subnuts fhat tlie order has been passed to accoininodate respondent No.4 Duriiig the course of arguments, learaed counsel for the petitioner could not establish as to how it can be said fhat the order has been passed to accoirunodate respondeat No.4. On beiug poiatedly asked froia leamed counsel for fhe petitioner fhat stnce when fhe petitioner is posted at Pendri, he subuuts fhat the petitioner is posted at Pendri since fhe year 1999. Transfer is an iiicidence of service. No person workmg on a traasferable post caa claim. to be posted at a particular place. It is for the em.ployer to see that who shoiild be posted where ia fhe iiiterest of better fanctioniag of fhe departtneut as also public interest. It is the setfled view of tbe Apex Court fhat unless fhe order of traasfer is vitiated by mala&de or extraneous considerations or is against auy statutory Rule or the Act, it cannot be iaterfered wifh by a Court of Law. Leanaed counsel for the petitioner could not poiat out any ;rouiid of laalafide, or exti-aneous considerations or that fhe order has been passed against any Statutory Rule or fhe Act. I do not find auy reason to iaterfere with fhe order of taransfer of fhe petitioner. The petition has no merit. The same is disnussed at the niotion stage itself. At fhis stage, leamed couiisel for the petitioner submits fh.at the petitioner has given representation to fhe concemed Miuister aud he should be given opportunily to m.ake a representation before fhe concemed authority aad it may be ordered fhat the observations m.ade m. this order shaU not coine in the way ofdecidiiig the representation. In view of fhe above, it is directed fbat if a representation is aiade before fhe concenied aufhority, fhe concemed authority- shaU be free to dispose of the representation in. accordance \'rith law wifhout beiag influeuced by aay observations niade by this Court io. this order. Shyna Sd/- Sunil Kumar Siitha Judee