HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4247/2010 PETITIONER Nandlal Sarve S/o Shri Sukaluram Sarve, Aged 50 years, Posted as Lab Technician at District Maiaria Office attached in CIMS Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Health & FamilyWelfare, State of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, RaipurC.G. 2. Chief Medical & Health Officer Behind Rani Sati Mandir Ring Road No.2 Bilaspur C.G. 3. District Malaria Officer Composite Building, Collectorate Bilaspur, District BifaspurC.G. WRIT PETiTION UNDERARTSCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Saleem Kazi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (06.08.2010) SUNILKUIVIARSINHAJ. Heard. Petitioner- Nandlal Sarve is working on the post of Lab Technician. By the impugned order dated 15.07.2010, he has been transferred from Bilaspurto Korba on administrative grounds. Mr. Saleem Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been transferred at the behest of the respondent No.3, as the petitioner had made some complaint against him, on which respondent No.3 was punished, therefore, the order of transfer is an out come of malafide. On being pointedly asked from tearned counsel for the petitioner that since when the petitioner is working at Bilaspur, he submits that the petitioner is working at Bilaspur since last 11 years. A perusal of the order of transfer would show that the said order has been passed by the State Government and that too after accepting the 1 recommendations of the concerned minister. It is not the singleorder of F transfer of the petitioner, but by the impugned order dated 15.07.2010, as manV as 84 bersons have been transferred. (; WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 4247/2010 In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is difRcult to accept that the order of transfer of the petitioner, which has been issued by the Government, has been issued at the behest of respondent No.3. Transfer is an incidence of service. No personworking on a transferable post can make his claim for posting at a particular place. It is for the employer to see as to who should be posted at which place, keeping in mind the better functioning ofthe department as also the public interest. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Rule or the Act, normally such orders are not to be interfered by a Court of law, is the settled view of the Apex Court in many cases. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge