v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (S) No.6550/2007 Pitamtoar Dadsena, aged about 48 years, s/o Maniraru Dadsena, Non- Medical Supervisor Cominunity Healfh Centre, Pithora, R/o Purani Basti, Pifhora, Tahsu aad District Mahasaniund(CG) Versus 1. The State of Chliatdsgarh, Tbrough ftie Secretary, HeaSth and Fauuly Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 2. Chief Medical Officer & Healtfa Officer, Maliasamiind, District MaIiasaiaund(CG) 3. Block Medical Officer, Coaimunify Healtih. Center, Pithora, District Mahasamua.d(CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226^S~ THE CONSTITUTION OF ISDIA Appearaace: Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, Counsel for Uie petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Dy. Govenunent AdvOcate for fhe State on advance copy. (15.11.2007) Heard. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Non.-Medical Supervisor, has been tamsterred from Pitliora, Distorict- Maiiasam.und to Coiumuiuty Healtli Centre, Keslikal, District Jagdalpur on adsainistrative grounds. Learaed counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitipner is holding fh.e post of Secretary of a recognized association, fherefore, he should not have been transfen-ed froia his present place of posting. Secondly, he argues fhat the petitioner is a kidney patient -^~ .P.N^5SO/2007 unita •s1- and he has to undergo surgery for it aud ta such a situation, his traasfer at a distant place laay be iajuries for him. On being pointedly asked from learaed coiinsel for fhe petitioner fhat since when the petitioner is posted at Pithora, he states fhat the petitioner is posted there since 1997. Traasfer is an. iacidence of service. No person workiag ou a transferable post caa claim to be posted at a pardcular place. It is for fhe employer to see tliat who should be posted where ia fhe hiterest ot' better fu.ncti.oning of tlie department as also public iaterest. It is the settled view of the Apex Court fhat unless fhe order oftrauster is vitiated by nialafides or extraiieous consideratiQii. or is agaiast any statutoiy Rule or Act, the same caanot be interfered with by a Court of Law These are aot ttie grounds for interferiag with the order of traiisfer by a Court of law. These are fhe groiinds, which. can be considered by fhe aufhorities of ttie departnient of the petitioner. Leamed CQunsel for the petitiouer could not point out aay such ground of inala&de or of extraaeous consideration or that fh.e order has been passed again.st auy statutory rule or fhe Act. I do not find any raerit ia fhis petition. The petition is not wol-tti adxuission. The saffle is disuussed at fb.e inotion stage itsel£_ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge