^> Sunder Das Kuldeep, aged about 42 years, S/o Shri Preetain Das Kuldeep, Pi^senfly posted and working as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, Unit Chichgaon, District Norfb Bastar (Kanker) (C.G.) R/o Ward No.5, Ns^ar Paachayat, Bhaaupratappur, Distdct Nortb Bastar (Kaaker) (CG) State of Chltatdsgarh, Through fhe Secretaiy, Department of Agriculture (Anunal Husbaadaiy), D.K.S. Btuldiag, Mant!~alaya, Raipur (C.G.) Dtrector, Dii^ctorate of Agriculture (Animal Husbaadry), Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Director, Anim.al Husbaadiy Services, Kanlcer, District North Bastar (Kanker) (CG) Shri Shashauk Thakur, counsel for fhe Petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State on advance copy. is V. Heard. The petitioner, who is working on fhe post of Assistant Veteri.aaiy Field OiEcer, has been traasfeiTed fi~om Vetermaiy Hospital, Bhanupratappur, Kaaker to Vetermary Hospital, 'lliuedi, District Dantewada on adiniaistralive grounds. After passiug of fhe order on 29th June 2007, suiother order dated 23.11.2007 has W.P.(S) No.7331/2007 ^\ been issued by tfae local authority to haad over the charge by the petitioner so fhat he inay be relieved to joiu at fhe transferred place. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner subinits that after passiag of tlie order on 29th June 2007, the petitioner was not reUeved tiB 23.11.2007 aud on 23.11.2007 onty, he has been asked to give charge, therefore, after a long period, the order is being coiaplied with, wbicb is not iu accordance with law. I have considered fhe poiats raised by learaed counsel for fh.e petitioner. I do not find any force iu such arguineats. There may be maay reasons for fhe local aufhority to not relieve a particular peraon at a pardcular poiut of •tiine and relieviag after the tTaasfer can. be effected even after sorne delay, because fhe law does uot prohibit ttie saine. Learued counsel for the petitioner also could not point out aay such prohibitoiy provision ia fhis regard. On being poiatedly asked froin leamed counsel for tb.e petitioner fhat since when fhe petitioner is posted at Bhaaupratappur, he submits that fh.e petitioner is posted there smce 1998. Transfer is aa incidence of service. No persoa workiug on a traasferable post can. claim to be posted at a particular place. It is for fhe employer to see fliat who should be posted where ia fhe iaterest of better functioning of fh.e departm.ent as also public ititerest. It is fh.e setded view of the Apex Court fh.at unless fhe order of transfer is vitiated by m.alafide or extraneous considerations or is agaiast any statutory Rule or the Act, it caiinot be interfered wifti by a Court of Law. Leamed counsel for the petitioner could not poiat out aay ground of nialafide, or extraneous coiisidei-ations or that fhe order has been passed against any Statutoiy Rule or fhe Act. I do not find aay reasou to iuterfere with the order of transfer of fhe petitioner. The petitiou has no nierit and the sauie is disinissed at tlie Diotion stage itself. j y^/ ~ Sunil Kumar Siitha Judge S'nyna