HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (S»No. 6346 of 3007 Dr. Panchrani Verma, S/o. I«ite Shri J.L. Verma, aged about 53 years, Distnct, Ayurved Officer (In-charge), Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPOBDEHTS 1. State of C.G,, Through- Secretejry, Departuient of Healfh & Faxufly Wetfare, (Mantralaya), R.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. Director, Indian System of Mediciae and Hoineopathy, Raipur (C. G.) 3. Dr. (Smt.) Kusuiu Shaj-ma, Ayiuved Chlkitsa Adhikari, Goveruxnent Ayurved Phannacy, Raigarh (C.G.). 4. Dr. Shvauilal Shakar, Goverament Ayiirvedic PTiannacy, Tekarikiincla, Block- Araug, District Raipur (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTiTUIpN OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Virendi'a Sbarma, CODIISRI for the petitioTie.r. Shri Pradeep Singb., Pauel Lawyer for the State on advance copy. ORALORBER (02.11.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heani on adinission. The petitioner, who is working on the post of nistrict Ayiirved Officer (In-charge), Raipiir, has heen transfeiTed and posted in the Goveniroent Ayiirved Pharmacy, Raipur hy order dated 6.10.2007 and rRspondent No.3 is be.ing hmught from Raigarh to Raipiir on his post. Leamed counsel for tlie petitioner argues that the action of the Govemment is inalafide becanse after writing a letter dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure-P/2) to the Chief Minister, tlie aforesaid ti-ansfer has been affected. T have penised the contents of the writ petition as a1so the contents of the letter dated 18.5.2007. It is nientioned in the letter that the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No. 161 in gradation Ust and senior Tnembers ai'e to he given the charge of District, which was a i-Rquest made 1~iy the. Union, W.P.C81NQ.fil46/1007 therefore, it was requested that the afoi'esaid rle-cjsmn of the Union should he fbllowed. I-iearaetl counsel for tJhe petitioner suhmifs thaf it is oiily after this letfer, the fransfer has been affected. Thoueh the letter contained like above blit it cannot be inferred that liy t.he said letter, the petitioner has been transfen-ed froia present place of posting and malafide can be ^afhered against the conduct of the State. Moreover, it is broughf to the notice of this Court fhat mciimbent i.e. rp.spondent No.3 is senior to the petjtioner, then;fon".,ifa senior is broilghf there, in usnal iiianner, fhen on this groiind only it cannot be said that the order is an oiiteome of inalafide. Moreover, the petitioner is not being transferred to soine other place from Raipiir, if. is a local shiffing. The transfer is an exigency of senrice and nohody working on a transferabte post can claim for his posting at a pai-ticular place. It is for the cmployer to sep. as to who shonld he posted at whicb. place. Unless the order of ti-ansfer is shown to be vitiated by Baalalides or passed on extraneoiis considerations or it is issued against any statiitoiy Rule or Act, it cannot be interfered by a Court of law, is the settied view of tlie Apex Coiirt. During the coiu-se of hearing, leamed counsel for the petitioner could not make oirt a case either ofarhih-ariness or of inalafide or of extraneous consideration or that the transfer order is passed in violation ofany statatoiy Rules or the Act. f am not mclined to admit this netition for hearing, the petition has no merit, fhe same is tiable to be disTnissed and it is disiuissed at the motion stage ftself. — Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti