yiwiori •yfcjj^;,j; 'C^- /£5^2— BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAJBUR f£HHAni§GARy) WRIT APPEAL N0. j 7 _ J3007 (WRiT^l^Fi@N IN©.iB/a©©^> APPELLANT Shyam Lal Rawat, aged about 45 years, spn pf Late Santpsh Kymar ^C.^^ Rawat/ working as Training OfficeF \G^'^'~ ^' (EiectFician), IndustFial Training .»«•' y^.^' \^-/'^:'"*'..' ^ ^^sy ^yy ^"^' "y ihs^Eu^e, ^aigarR, 8^0. i.T.I. iolQny; gMikrganir NggSr, Rg|g8 , @j|tt. Rai§iaFh (g.@.) RESPONDENTS y i. :<-.3' £f5 CY^ •.•^<, 10 ^G -.3^ F^. '.^^vv /2. yERSUS State pf Chhattjsciarh, through - the Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.©.) Principal , Industnal Trajning Institute, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT ARREAfc UNBER SECTIQN 2fll @E (BUUATftSSARH .k iil-IKSS HIGHCOURTOF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGAF^ : BILASPUR DMSION BENCH CORAM : HONBLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. WRIT APPEAL N0.17 OF 2007 APPELLANT RESR3NDENTS Shyam Lal Rawat Versus State of ChNatfisgarhand another. Present: Shri Roop Naik, counsel forttie appellant. Shri N.K. Agrawal, Dy. A.G. for frie respondents/State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14th February, 2007) The foHowing oral order of the Court was passed by H.L Dattu, CJ. This appeal arises out of an or<ter passed by the leamed Slngle Judge in Writ Petitlon No. 18 of 2007. By the impugned order the tearned Single Judge has rejected fte writ petition. (2) The petitioner was working as Training Otficer (Etectrician) in the Industrial Training Institajte, Raigarh. By an order passed on 29-06-2006, he has been fransferred. Aggrieved by the said order the petttioner has approached this Court. (3) In the writ pet'rtion, the petitioner has not alleged that the transfer order so passed Is tainted with mala fide or passed by any incompetent authority. Keeping these aspects, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. (4) We have also gone through the order of transfer passed in ttie instant case. We are of the opinion that the learned Singte Judge has not S»..E ^-^ committed any mistake of whatsoever. Since, the order of transfer is an incidence of service, the person who is in service should accept the transfer order and comply with the same. (5) In view of above, we do not find any good ground to interfere vrith the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected. (6) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge