~y /2'l •^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR PETITIOEWR W.P.fSI No.4631/2007 Babiilal Ahh-war, son of Shri Jairain Ahirivai', aged about 35 years, presently working as Rural Agriculturc Devclopment Extension Officer, Resident of Bemetara, Tabsil Benietara, Distiict Durg(CG). Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretaxy, Department of Agiiculture, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG) Tbe Deputy Secnetaiy Chhattisgarh Goverument, Agiicultux'e Departnient RaipurfCG) The Dipector, Departiaent of Agriculture, Raipiir(CG) The Joiat Director, Department of Agriculture, Dui^(CG) The Sub Divisionai Officer ('AgricuifurR), Bemetara, Distnct- Durg(CG) P.R.KhiDnonya, at present workuig ia thc officc of Scnior Rural Agriculture Dcvelopment Bxtensioa Ofi&cer Gurur, District Duig(CG) 3. 4. 5. ¥- Apnearaace: Shri P.P.Sabii, coiiBsel for thc petitioner. Ms. Deepali Paadey, Panel Laivyer for the State on advance copy. ,08.200 SUNILKU^ARSraHALJ. Heard on admission. The petitioner, wfao is working on the nost of Riu'al Agriculture Devctopment OfiGcer, Bemetara, bas chaUenged his oi-der of transfer dated 29.6.2007(Annexure P-l), liywhich, he has been ti-ansfen'ed froin the said piace to the office of Dy. Dircctor Agricultui-e Kanker, District-Kanker on ariministi'ative grounds. W.P.fS'! 4631/2007 ^. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argiiea that the petitioner is a low paid emLployee, therefoTe, he woilld be put m great hairiship, if he is transfenied. He secondty argiies that flie aforesaid order 1'ias been passed to acconiniodate respondeiit No.6, who is to cotae in piace of the petitioner. He siibmits that it appears in the order that. respondent No.6 is coming on his own expenses, whereas, the pefitioTier is being traasfeiTed on adnunistrative grounds, therefore, the order appears to be vitiated with inalafirie. So far as the first ground is concenied, it is not the doinmion ofthe court to consider the personal difficulties ofthe eniployee. It. is for tiie employer to look into such gi-onnd. As far as the groiind of malafide is concemed, no case ia inade out on this ground, as it is a nonnal phenonienoii that if an enipioyee is ta-ansfenTRd fnoin a particular place to another place and his place nemains as a vacant place, preference is to be givcn to tlie person, who wants that place on his own caoice and if he is hrought ia the vacant piace of that person, who has been transfen-ed on aciministrative gi'ounds, the saine cannot be treated as a malafide. On being pointedly asked froni leamed counse.1 for the petitioner as to fmm when thc petitioner is posted at Bemetara, Ke submits that the petitioiieris postai thene since 1999. Having lieard leamed coiinssel for the petitioner, having considering the facts and circumstances of t.he case, especially considering tbat the petitioner, who was posted at Bemetara since the year 1999, has been transfei-ref! in the year 2007 to Kanker oa adiauiisti'ative grounds, in whicb, theiie appeaj's to he no nialafide, I am of flie opinioii fliat it is not a fit. case; in waich, Uiis Court is lieqilired to issue a writ. For the foiTegoing reasons, I do not find any inerit ia the petition. The petition is dismissed at the inotioo stage itself. No costs. ^^ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sunita