^ '.V" HEGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH. BILASPUR CORAEVS: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'bSe Shri T.P. Sharma.JJ. APPLICANT RESPQNDENTS WRITAPPEAL N0.149 QF 201-3 GQrelalSahu,sonofGhaduramSahu, aged about 44 years, Resident of Koyaa, Viliage & Tahsil Bafoda Bazar, Distrlot Raipur, and Chhattlsgarh. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh: Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat Rural Deveiopment, D.K.S; Bhawan Mantralaya.Raipur.Chhattisgarh. 2, Chief Ex0Gutive Officer, Jiia Panchayat, JRaipur. District Raipur, ChhattisgarM. 3. Chlef-ExecutJve Orricer, Janpad Panchayaf,'] Balocia Bazar,. District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Hemant Kumar, son pf Thari Chandra Sahu,. ' vide '.president: . Janpad Pan(;hayat, 1 Baioda Bazaar, ChhatSisgarh. WRiT APPEAL UNDER SECT80N 2. SUB-SECft0^(1 LOFTHE CHHATTISGARH NSGM CGURt [APPEAL TO DSVISSGN BEHCH) XCT, 2006. •Aooearance:, , •' . ' . . ' • - ; . . • : • Mr. Prakash Mishra, Advocate for the appeilant. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER {20^.2611) SUNSL KUMARSINHA.J. .Heard on admissEon. : . : . ... i •. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2011, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1678/2011 by the iearned Single Judge, the appellant/petitioner has filed thiswrit:appeal.:.''. ; : . • -. :. . •;: • ,''. • •:-'': ". ^ '; By the impugned o^der, the iearned Sirigle Judge has dismissed the writ petltion of the appeliant/petitioner, which^^^ orderdated 10.03,2011 (Annexure-P-l)in the writ petitjon. Rahul WRITAPPEALNO. 1490F2011 (£) By the impugned transfer order, the petitioner was transferred from Viilage panchayat, Changori.to Village Panchayat Mudagaon. The sole contention raised by the petitioner was that both the piaces are at distance of about 300 K.ms,therefore, it would be djfficult for the petitioner to compiy the order. The ieamed Single Judge rejylng on various decision of the Supreme Court held that no case for interference was made out. .. . . • , . ' . ' . ' . . . : '• Transfer is an incidence of service.No person working on a transferabte post can make his ciaim for posting at a particular place. It is for the employer to see as to who should be posted atwhich place, keepjng in mind the better functioning of the department as aiso the pubiic interest. Unless the order oftransNr is shown to be vjtiated by matafides or extraneous considerations or it is shovm to be passed against anystatutory Ru!e or the Act, normaiiy such orders are not to be interfered by a Court of iaw, is fhe settled view ofthe Apex Court in many cases. in view of the above,we do not find any substance in the writ appeal. The appeal is liable to be djsmissed, and js hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge