HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’NSGARH; BILASPUR W.P.§Sl No. 4243 of 2007 years, son of Shm' Budhram Singh Patel, workmg as — Patwaxi, 'P.H.N. 30, Utai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) PETITIORTER Sesh Narayan Patel, agsd about 48 N Versus \K RESPONDENT$ 1 State of v Chhattisgarh, through th€ Bhawam Revanue, Raipm‘ Dan (C. G.) Kalyan Singh Sushn’ Neha Tiwali, wrking as — Collector, Distt. Burg (CG) ' N o w 2 W.P.(S) No. 4243 of 2007 “Transfer which is an incidence of smvice is not to be mtErfEred with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by malaiide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principle governing the transfer §ee Ambani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orrissa). Unless the order of transfer is Vitiated by mala lide or is made in violaiion of operative guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it, (See Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas). Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of operative any guidelines or rules the Courts Should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Union of India & others Vs. Janardan Debanath & another it was observed as follows: “No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category or transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala nde exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities “s; substituting their own decision for that of the employee] management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sim‘ Bhagwanv” The transfer is an incidence of service and nobody working on the transferable post can claim for posting at a particular place. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with such order. The petition has no merits and the same is dismissed at l , Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha i Judge ' ’‘(i the motion stage itself. vatti /‘a v‘ l ‘