^ •^ t•^. W.PISl. N^.6417 OF 2007 U.S. Dubey, aged 47 years, s/o Shri Moti Lal Dubey, r/o Chandaai Chowk, Kududand, Tahsil & Distt. BUaspur (C.G) Fersus 1 State of Chattisgarh, Thiough tfae Priacipal Secretary,. TribalWeIfai^ Departinent, Maatralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2 Assistant Coinm4ssioaer, Tribal Welfare Department, Bilaspur (C.G) 3. Director, Tribal WeIEare Department, Raipur (C.G) 4. CoUector, Bflaspur (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUT30N OF IHDIA Appearance: Shri Kainal Pandey, couiisel for fhe petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govt. Advocate, for fhe State/ respondents on advance copy. .11.: SUNIL KUMAR^INHA, J Heard on adiuission. The petitioner, who is working on fhe post of Accouataut, has been traasferred froin the ofElce of Assistant Commissioner, Tnbal Development, BUaspur to Higher Secondary School, Madanpur, Distt. Korba, on adiniaistrative grounds. This order was passed on 07ih July 2007. The said order was chaUenged by fhe petitioner on fbe health ground iu earlier writ petition i.e., W.P(S) No.5570/2007 aad fhe said petition was disposed of as withdrawn on the ground fh.at a representation was already filed by fhe petitioner before the concemed aufhority aad the same was Ukely to be decided. \ / \ Cl\ ^- Rao % W.PfSl. No.6417 OF 2007 Leamed counsel for the petitioner subimts fhat the representation ffled by the petitioner has uot been decided so far. Therefore, ttie petitioner has to file this second writ petition. He svgain. subinits that fhe petitioner is a patient of Coronary Arteiy disease aud he is takuig regular treatment fi~oia ApoBo Hospital, Bilaspur, therefore, his placeinent at a dlstance of 150 Kms. froia Bilaspiir would not be helpftd to fhe health of the petitioner. Needless to say, these are not the grounds for interference ia aa order oftraasfer by a court oflaw. Traasfer is aa iacidence of service. No person workiag on a trausferable post can claun to be posted at a particular place. It is for fhe employer to see fhat who should be posted wbere in fhe iaterest of better functiouing of fhe departnieiit as also ia the public interest. It is fhe settled view of the Apex Court that uiiless the order of traasfer is vitiated by malafides or extraaeous consaleration or is agaiast aay statutoiy Rules or Act, it caanot be interfered by a Court of Law. Leamed counsel for the petitioner could not inake out a case either ofarbitrai-iness or ofmala&de or ofextraneous consideration or fhat flie traasfer order is passed ^ainst any statutoiy rules or the Act. In view of the above, I am not inclmed to interiere with the order passed by the concemed authority. However, I stiB say ttiat the co-sicemsd aufhority is free to consider the representation of fhe petitioner on fhe healfh ground because it is fbr the employer to look iato such probleins ofits employee aad to get better service li-oin him. This petition is disposed ofwifh the aforesaid observations. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \..