HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH,^ILASPUR b^ Division Bench: Hon'ble^Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha Hon?ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar, JJ. APPELLANT PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Appeal No. 313 pf 2009 Smt. Rajmati Bhagat W/o Shri Rambilas Bhagat, aged about 47 years, Occupation Ser^ice, Resident of Village Kalyanpur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Deputy Secretary, Women and Child Development and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 3. The Director, Woman and Child Development Department, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 5. The Project Officer Women and Child Development Department, Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Writ Appeal under Section^2 (1) pfthe High Court of Chhattisearh (Appeal to Division Benchl Act.2QQ6} Appearance : Mr. Ashok Vaishnav, Advocate for the appellant/petitioner. Mr. U.N.8. Deo, Govt. Advocate, for the State/respondents on advance copy. ORDER (29.10.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. (1) Heard. (2) Being aggrieved with the order dated 23.7.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3726/2009-by the learned Single Judge ofthis Court, the ^appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal. Writ Anpeal No. 313 of 2009 (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The appellant/petitioner is working on the post of Supervisor in the Women & Child Development Department. By an order dated 4.7.2008, she was transferred from Surajpur, District Surguja to Kusmi, District Surguja. The said order of transfer was challenged by the appellant in W.P.(S) No. 5822/2008. The said writ petition came for hearing before the Single Bench of this Court on 18.10.2008. On the said date, the learned counsel for the appellant did not press the petition on merits. However, he prayed for permission to make representation before the concerned authority and a direction to the concerned authority to decide the representation. On such prayer, the learned counsel for the State submitted that if the representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law, on its own merits, within a period of two weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe representation. He further submitted that no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellant till the disposal of the representation. Accordingly, the petitioner was disposed of. The appellant/petitioner, thereafter made a representation before the concerned authority on 21.10.2008. The said representation was decided by the concerned authority on 6.6.2009 and in the said period the appellant was allowed to continue at Surajpur. Since the representation was dismissed on merits, the appellant again filed a writ petition challenglng the order of transfer as also the order of rejection of representation dated 6.6.2009 (Annexure-P/1 85 P/4 in the writ petition). The learned Single Judge dismissed the second writ petition holding that the transfer is an incidence of sen^ice and no grounds are made out to interfere with order of transfer. (4) Mr. Ashok Vaishnav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently argued that the appellant is suffering from some element for which she is being treated at Ambikapur and fo^) 11 § ^. ^t? ^ y^"".^ "^•s^v' Writ Appeal No. 313 of 2009 Raipur, therefore, it would be difficult for her to work in a remote area like Kusmi. (5) On being pointedly asked from the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that since when the appellant is working at Surajpur, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is working at Surajpur since last 9 years. (6) Transfer is an incidence of ser^ice, no person working 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 of the department as also the public interest. (7) 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. (8) For the foregoing reason, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. (9) The appeal has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge vatti