y/- COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR No. 6579 of 2007 Sanyasi Ram Budek, s/o Late Shri Janak Rain Budek, aged about 57 years, Prmcipal, Model Govt. Higher Secondaiy School, Saraipali, R/o Saraipali, Talisfl Saraipali, District Maliasamund (CG) 1 State of Cliliattisgarh, Actiag tbrough Secretary. Govt.of ClAattisgarh Departnient of School Education, DKS Maii.tralaya, Raipui'(CG) SIiri K.A.Ansari, Sr. Advocate witb Shri Syed Imtiyaz Ali, counsel for the petitioner. Slii-i Pradeep Singh, Paiiel Lawyyer for tlie State ou advaace copy. ^- Heard. The petitiouer, who is workiag on the post of Principal, Govemmeat Adarsb Higher Secondary School, Sariapali, Distnct Maliasamund, lias toeen transfen-ed from. Saraipau to Govemment Higher Secondary School, Hasda, District Dhamtari on admitustrative grounds. Leanied counsel &r tlie petitioner argues ttiat on earlier occasion, i.e. 011 11.8.2006, tbe petitioner was ti-aiisfen-ed from Sai-aipaii to Govt. Higher Secondar^r School, Nardaha, District Raipur on adiniiustrative grounds. Tbat order was chaUenged by the petitioner before this C-ourt ia W.P.No.4616/2006. The poiats raised were that ia fhe year 2004, fhe State Goverruneut has decided - \ W.P. <S) No. 6579 of2007 to introduce CBSE course in 15 schools and in order to teach ia . ttiose schoote, certaui teachers were tramed and ftie petitioner was one of those teachers, but he was ta-ansfei'red to the School where CBSE course was not introduced. On fliis ground, fhe petition was disposed of and the petitioner was aUowed to f3e a representation before the concemed aufhority and the concemed aufhonty was du-ected to dispose of ftie representation after consideration of aU fhese poiiits and tiB then, it was directed fhat the petitioner shall not be reUeved ifhe has not ah-eady been iclieved. Leanied counsel subinits fhat therealter, fhe representation was filed and fhe earlier transfer order of fhe petitioner was caacelled by flie Govemment 011 10.11.2006. He submits that thereafter again tbis inipugned order has been issued and now agaiu ftie petitioner is being tt-aasfeiTed to fhe iastitution, where fhere is no CBSE course. 'Therefore, the action appears to be unjust. He also subinits ttiat the petittoner is entrusted with fhe work of distribution of books of Patbya Pustak Nigain aad if he is transferred from. his present place of posthig, fhat work witl also silffer. He furfher subinits fhat fhe books ai-e also ia. Uie charge of the petitioner. In fact, fhese are not fhe grounds for iuterferiilg wifti tlie order of traiisfer of an employee, who holds a transfei-able post. If the Govemment does not waat to utUize fhe services of fhe eraployee ia the best possible iniauner accordiag to his quaMication and education, fhat itsetf does not give any right to tlie eiuployee to file a ^etition for quashiag of fhe order of traiisfer or chaUenge fb.e decision of fhe Govei-niaent. Once fhis Court. has alreadv iatervened and has reterred fhe matter for representation aud at that tiine, tlie order of traasfer of fhe petitioner was cauceUed, but if fhe petitioner is agam traasferred to such institution that by itself does not constitute nialafide. The Goveniment may take a difierent staiid ta ditfereat scenario lookius to fhe prevaUiag adiuitustrative ex^ency aud fhe public iaterest. a.'*^. sunita 3 W.P. (S)No. 6579 of 2007 Transfer is an iacidence of service. No person working on a trajisterable post caa claim to be posted at a particular place. Jt is for the employer to see fhat who sliould be posted wliere in tbe interest of better fuactiorung of fhe depai-tinent as also public aiterest. It is fhe setfled view of fhe Apex Court tiaat unless fhe order of traiisfer is vitiated bv inalafides or extraiieous consideration or is against aay statutoiy Riile or Act, fhe same cannot be iiiterfered with by a Court of Law. Leanied counsel for fhe petitioner could not poiat out any such gi'ound of inalafide or extraaeous consideration or that the order has been passed against any statutory rule or fhe Act. It only appears fliat fhe Govei-ninent has not taken care fhat the petitioner holds fhe qualification for teacliiag CBSE syBabus aad it is for fhe Govemiueat to ftiink that how Tliev can utilize fhe seivices ofthe petitioner. I do not fiud aay gi-ound of xualatide or exta'aneous coasideration in flie order iinpugned. The petition is not worffa adinission aad fhe same is disnussed at the niotion stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^-