J HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P (81 No. 5044 of 2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS M.C. Bhainbri, S/o Shri M.L. Bhambri, Aged about 46 years, Workmg as Scientist (Selection Grade), Departiiient of Agronomy, Indira Gaadhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.) Vcrsus Indira Gaudhi KrBhi Vishwavidayala, Through its Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Dr. C.R. Hazara, Vice ChanceUor, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyala, Krishak Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chliattisgarh, fhrough its Secretary, Department of Agriculture, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur(C.G.) (-^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION PF INDIA Appearance: Shri P.S. Koshy, coT-uiseI forthe petitioner. Shri Yashwaat Singh, Govt. Advocate for the State^ ORAL ORDER (05.09.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard ou ad^ssion. The p^etitioner, who is working on fhe post of Scientist, Selection Grade, Department ofAgronoiny, ludira Gaadhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, has challenged fhe validity of his traasfer order dated 31.7.2007, .whereby, he has been traasferred from: Raipur to Dantewada on fhe post of SMS, Agronomy, Krishi V^yan Kendra. Learaed couiisel for fhe petitioner subinits that on 25.4.2007, 4 persons, iacludiag the petitioner, had gone to the ChanceUor (Goveraor) raisiag fhe grievauce regardin^g withdrawal of proinotion ordeis of 36 professors, therefore, the WP(S) No.5044/2007 y t-. ^. Vice ChaaceUor, with a Baalafide iatention has passed the order of transfer of the petitioner. The names of those 4 persons are Shri P.K. Tiwad, Dr. A.K. Kosta, Professor Prashant Dubey and M.C. Bhambari. His subinission is that all fhe 4 persons have been transferred by fhe Vice Chaaccnor on accoiuit offactuni of meeting with fhe Goveraor. His further subinission is fhat fhe .project in which fhe petitoner is being transferred is sponsored by fhe Central Govenunent aad as soon as fhe project is over, the apprehension is that the services of fhe petitioner shall be jeopardized. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner at lengfh and perused the record. So far as the first ground of malafi.de is concemed, 110 transfer order, pertauung to ttie other 3 persons, ineationed above, has been ffled before this Court to assess that in fact, aU the 4 persons, as stated by teamed counsel for the petitioner, have been trausferred by the conceraed aufhorily on accoimt of fheir meeting wifh the Govei-aor. Moreover, it does not appear to be reasoaable that merely on fhe grouad that some persons had gone to ineet the Govenior, the department/authority shaU traasfer thein. This contention farfher does not appear to be reasonable because, by the itupugned order itself, as inaoy as 10 persons have been traasferred by the concemed departinent, whereas, fhere are no such allegation against the reiuaining 9 persons. In view of fhe above, the grouad of inalafide raised by the petitioneron the above event^cannot be entertairied. So far as the second grouad regarding termiaation of the project is couceraed, it is a matter pf cominon parlaace that even if the project is termiaated, where aa employee is posted or sent for worldng, ia the event of such closure, the service bf the employee, who is tte« workiag on the substantive post, never jeopardize. He is to reiaain on the substautive post aad ia the event of closure ofa particular project, it woidd be iticuiabent upon the eniployer to inaJke the next posting of fhe einployee [1 WP(S) No.5044/2007 ."•\; and aay presumption regardiag jeopardizmg service of the employee after closure of the project is simply aa unfounded apprehension. It is a settled position of law fhat nobody workuig on a traasferable post can claim fer his postiag at a particular place. Unless, fhe order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malafides, extraaeous consideratiou or agaiust the Rules or fhe Act, the Courts are not required to iaterfere with fhe orders of ta-aasfers. In fhis case, ou being poiutedly asked froia leamed counsel for fhe petitioner that from when the petitioner is posted at Raipur, he very fauly subinits that the petitioner is posted at Raipur since the year 1986 aad fhis is for fhe first tune, he is beiag traiisferred frora Raipur to sorae other place. In the facts and circuiiistances of this case, I do not find aay reason to uiterfere in wifh fhe order of transfer of the petitioner fixim Raipur to Daatewada. The petition has no nierit aad the same is dismissed. J-L Shyna Sd/- SisnUKumarSittha Judge ^ ^ -^.