^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIOWER W.PISl. No. 6467 of2007 R.P. Dubey S/o. Rainkripal Dubey, Aged about 56 years, R/o. Bagbahra, Mahasamimd, District Mahasainund (CG) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, TIu-ough: Secretary, Health aad FamUy Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Healfti Services Raipur, District 2 Du-ector, Chattisgarh, Raipur(CG) 3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Mahasamund, Distnct Mahasaiuund (CG) 4. Block Medical Officer, Prmiaiy Health Centre, Bagbahra, Distdct Mafaasamimd (CG) WRIT PETITION UWDER ARTICLE 226 OP THB CONSTITUTION Apjpearance: Shri Vikram Dixit, couasel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govt. Advocate, for fhe State on advance copy. (12.11.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J Heani on admission. The petitioner, who is workiag on the post of Non-Medical Supervisor (N.M.S.) at Bagbahra, District Maliasamund, has beeu traasferred to the office of C.M.O., Jagdalpur, on adiniaistrative grounds. " Leamed couasel for tbe petitioner argues that fhe son of the; petitioner is studyiug iu Class 12th in local institution, fherefore, the order of transfer is causiag iuconvenience to the petitioner. He also aiyies fhat fhe wife of fhe petitiouer is inentaUy ill, therefore, it is diGficult for fhe petitioner to maaage all fhis. W.P.fS)No. 6467 of2007 '^z On beiug poiatedly asked froxn fhe leamed couiisel for tlie petitioner fhat siace when the petitioner is posted at Bagbahra, he subiuits fhat fhe petitioner is workiag fhere tbr a long period. Needless to say, these aie not fhe grounds for iaterference in an order of transfer by a court of law. Transfer is an iucidence of service. No person working on a traasferable post cau claim to be posted at a particular place. It is for the einployer to see fh.at who should be posted where in fhe interest of better fuiictioning of fhe department as also ia fhe pubUc iaterest. It is the setfled view of tbe Apex Court fhat unless the order of transfer is vitiated bv inalafides or extraneous consideration or is agaiiist aay statutory RuJes or Act, it caanot be interfered by a Court of Law. Leamed couiisel for fhe petitioner could not make oiit a case either of arbitreiriness or ofinalafide or ofextraneous consideration or ttiat the traasfer order is passed again.st aay statutoiy rules or the Act. I do not find aay reason to iaterfere with fhe order of transfer of fhe petitioner. The petitiou has no merits and fhe same is disnussed at fhe niotioa stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti