HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P.(S) No. 3699/ 2008 S.P. Thwari, S/o Shri Kaii Prasad Tiwari, aged about 51 years, Occupation Sub - Engineer, Water Resources Department, Narayanpur, Bastar (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2 Executlve Engineer, Kondagaon, Sub Division, Narayanpur, Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJNDIA . Appearance: Smt. Hamlda Siddique,Counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents on advance copy. ORALORDER (15.07.2008) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Sub-Engineer in the Water Resources Department, Narayanpur, has been transferred from Narayanpur to Marwahi Division, Distrlct Biiaspur on administrative grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submlts that looking to the distance from Narayanpur to Marwahi, the transfer is bad in law. She also submits that the petitioner is theofflce bearer of a recognized union, therefore, his transfer was not possible in an ordinary manner, iRn"^' ^f;'^y '^> '&. .-^ W.P.(S)No.3699/2008 as the necessary requirement for transferring of an office bearer has not been complied with. She submits that a representation in this regard has already been filed by the petitioner. So far as the first ground regarding distance is concerned, that is not a factor to examine the reasonableness or validity of the order of transfer of a government servant, who is working on a transferable posf. Transfer is an incidence of service, no person working on a transferable post can make his ctaim for posting at a particular place. It is for the employer to see as to who should be posted at which place, keeping in mind the better functioning of the department as also the public interest. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Rule or the Act, normally such orders are not to be interfered by a courtof law, is the settled view of the Apex Court in many cases. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner could not point out any such ground of malafide or extraneous considerations or that the order has been passed against any Statutory Rule or the Act. So far as the second ground regarding petitioner being the office bearer of a recognized union is concemed, this ground is to be considered bythe authorities ofthe petitioner's department and 1 do not deem it proper to entertain this petition on this ground alone. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, the authorities of the State are free to consider the representation made by the petitioner in regard to he being an offtee bearer. shyna Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge