COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BIX-ASPUR W.P (83 No. S009 of 2007 Smt. K.R. Goyal, w/o Shri S.S.Goyal, aged about 48 years, Assistant Project OfEcer, Integrated Chfldren Developiaent Scheine, Dondiiohara, District Dui^(CG) Versus 1 The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Deputy Seci^tary, Wonien & Children Developinent & Social Welfare Department, DKS Bhavan, Secretariat, Raiplir(CG) 2 Dircctor DiTectorate Woinen and Children Welfare Chhattisgarh Raipur(CG) 3 District Project Officer, Engiu.eei^Civil) Divisional Offiee, Woinen aud CIuldreu Welfare, Chhattisgarh Raipur(CG) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Shri Vivek Rafhore, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Panel Lawyer for flie State on advauce copy. (03.09.2007) The petitioner, who is presently workmg on fhe post of Assistaat Project Officer, Integrated Children Developinent Scheme at DondUohara, District Durg(CG) has been transferred fi-oia the Said place to Ekibrit Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Berla, Distnct Durg. Learued counsel foi the petitioner subniits that the petitioner is a post bearer in Chliattisgarh Karmachan Congress and is holding the post of Secretary, Chhattisgarh Karaaachari WP(S) No.5009/2007 Congress at Tahsfl. Braiich Doadilohara, District Dui^(CG), fherefore, she should not have been transferred ia light of the policy of fhe Goverrunent. He further subniits fhat the husbaiid of fhe petitioner is also a goveminent servant, who is working ia Dondflohara and children of fhe petitioner are also studyuig in fhe local iiistitution, therefore, fhe traasfer of fhe petitioner would adversely affect the petitioner aud her fairuly. He subinits fhat on thasegroundsthe traiisfer order ofthe petitioner inay be set aside. Needless to say that these are not the grounds for iiiterfermg iu the order of ta-ansfer by a Court of law. Unless fhe traasfer is vitiated by raalafides or extraneous considerations or the same is agaiast any statutory Rule or Act, ordinarily it cannot be interfered by a Court of law is the settled position ;iven by fhe Apex Court. The ground of personal difEculties or violation of policy ete., are the grounds to be considered by the einployer itself. In fhe facts and circunistaaces of fhe case, I am not iaclmed to iaterfere in fhe order of transfer of the petitioner. However, the petitioner shaU be at liberty to ffle appropriate representation before fhe conceraed aufhority, which shall be disposed of ui accordaace wifh law. ————— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sunita