W mGH COURT OF C+§HATTI$GARH BgLASPUR WRIT PETI‘HON gSi No.3567i2010 PETITIONER Om Prakash Sahu, aged about 39 years, S/o Ram Prasad Sahu, Occupation — Service, R/o Korba, Tahsi! & District Korha (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhartisgarh, Thrcugh Secretary, Tribai' Weffare {Department UKS. Bhawan, Raipur (08.) 2 Managing Direcmr, Chhatiisgarh State Antyavasai Sahkeri Wta Evum Vikas Nigam Ltd. Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (CG) 3 Coiiector, Korba, Tahsii and District Korba {c.G.) 4 Srikant Jha, Assistant Grade-Iii: Antyavaeaa‘ Sahkaeé Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam Ltd, Biiaspur District Biiaspur (C.G.) WRW PETiTjgN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE“ y CONSTlTuTiéN OF iNDlA Kagaarence : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner. '?= Mr. R. Tripathi, Panet Lawr ferthe State. 0mm. CJRDER (19.97.2910) SUNii. KUMAR siNHA, J. Heard. Petitioner -Om Prakash Sahu has fiied this petition for quashing of 'his transfer order dated 03.012010 (Annexure PH), whereby, he has been transferred from Korba to Biiaspur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner is working in Korba since last 2 years, therefore, i i WRIT PETITION (S) No.3567i2010 }% as per Policy dated 22"” June of 2010 of the State Government, which says that normally a person shouid not be transferred prior to completien of 2 1/2 years at a place, he shouid not have been transferred. The Poiicy laid down by the State fixes a norm for the State itseif and that does not confer any right to the employees to have a mandamus in their favour by a Court of law under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indra. That is to say that such policies fixed by the State are not enforceable in a Court of law. Transfer is an incidence of service, no person working on a transferable post can make his claim for posting at a particular place. it is for the empioyer 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. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malatides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Rule or the Act, normally such orders are not to he interfered by a Court or" law, is the settled view of the Apex COurt in many cases. For the going reasons, l do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is iiabie to be and is accordingiy dismissed. shyna