xasmjS.llvJIESStes-siasja^tawsesssu^-i.s^ Smt. Nalmi Sori, W/ o Sbri SonaraGi Sori, Age about 54 years, District Progranune Officer, Woinen aau Child Wetfare Daatewada, District (C.G.) Dautewada 3. State of Chhatdsgarh, Through : The Secretar)r, Women and phild Departiaent, Mantralaya, (C.G.) Tlie Director, Woineii and Cbild Departnient, Directorate, (C,G.) Shri PrafuU Dubey, District Progranune Of&cer; Woinen aiid Child Departaient, Daiiteivada (C Welfare ir Raiour WeUare ,G.} Shri Prafull Bharat, Couiisel for the petition.er. Sbri Satish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate for fhe State. ;•* A. ^b •. Heatd. The petitioner who is working on fhe post of DMtrict Prograirune Officer, Dautewada, has been traasfeiTed froni Dantewada to Jagdalpur on administratioa groiinds aud by aiiother order, respondent No.3 has been posted as District Programiue OSicer, Dantewada. Leanied couiisel for fhe petitioner subinits that fhe petitioner has been tt-ansferred to accominodate respondent No.3. He submits fhat eat-lier respondent No.3 was vrorkuig as District Project. Officer and when she was promoted oa 10.08.2007, she was given postiag at Dantewada aad for fbis, the petitioner is beiag transferred to adjust respondent No.3. He also subinits fiiat the sist.er ofrespondent No.3, wbo is workiug on tlie post ofProject r <^ Shyna W.P.(S)No. 6955 of2007 Officer, is facing departinental enquiiy and her prelimmai;^ enquir)' was conducted by tlie petitioner, fheicfore, the petitioaer has been ti'ansferred. I have heard leafued counsei for the petitioner at lengtli. The groiinds wbich have been pressed by fhe petitioner to show tliat ia fact the petitioner was trausferred to adjust respondent No.3 do not appear to be appeaiiag and fhey also do no constitlite iQgredients of inalafides. In aa administrative exigency, such recourse can be adopted aud unless the recourse adopted appears to be apparenfly on extraueous considerations or intentional on fhe part of flie goveniinent, no niEdatide can be attributed. As far as question of prelimtiiary eiiquiry ia fhe niatter of sister ofrespondent No.3 is conceraed, fhe same can also not be a ground to jiiterfere with th.e order of ti'ansfer, because, fhe order has been passed by ttie State Goverrmient aad it cannot be presuiaed fhat respondent No.3 inay have such interference wifh fhe level of tlie goverrunent that she wffl get tfae petitioner transferred only on the groiuid fhat tlie petitioner had conducted prelimifiary enquiiy against her sister. Transfer is aii incidence of service. No person workiug on a traasferable post can claiin to be posted at a particular place. It is for fhe eniployer to see ttiat who should be posted where iu fhe interest of better tunctioniag of fhe department as also ia the pubUc interest. It is the setfled view of fhe Apex Coiut fhat uiiless the order of ta-ansfer is vitiated by ruala&des or extraueous consideratioQ or is against aay statutor}- Rules or Aot, Uie same cannot be interfei'ed by a Court of Law. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner could not point out auy ^round of lualafide, exteuieous considefations or violation of any statutoiy rules or fh.e Act. I do not lind any reason to int.eri'ere ia fhe order of transfer. Tfie petition deserves to be disiaissed and is accordiagly disniissed. i~ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge