HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition 1S1 No. 2246 of 2008 Petitioner Mohan Lal Sonbhadra Versus - Respondents ' State of Chhattisgarh 85 another Post for Judgment 8; Order on M‘ “day of April, 2009. . Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition 1S! No. 2246 of 2008 ETITIONER : Mohan Lal Sonbhadra, aged 49 years, S/o Dashru Ram Sonbhadra, presently working as Patwari, at Pattwari Halka No.11, Tehsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) R/o Village Khundani, Tehsil Gumr, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, . Revenue Department, Mantralaya, D K S Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Collector, (Land Records), District Durg (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon‘ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shri R. K. Kesherwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. JUDGMENT AND ORDER " (Passed on this ILRQay of April, 2009) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 1.10.2007 (Annexure P/ 1), passed by the Respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner, while working on the post of Patwari, was transferred from Tahsil — Gurur to Patwari Halka No. O3, Tahsil — Bemetera, District — Durg. 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was working on the post of Patwari at Patwari Halka No.3, Tahsil — Bemetara, District — Durg. He submitted an application for his transfer to Tahsil Gurur. Pursuant to the request of the petitioner he was transferred from Patwari Halka No. 03 Tahsil — Bemetera to Patwari Halka No.11, Tahsil - Gurur by order dated 13.6.2007 (Annexure P/3). By the same order one Shri Ramswaroop Patel was transferred from Patwari Halka No.1 1, P Tahsil — Gurur, to Patwari Halka No.03 Tahsil Bemetera i.€. in place of petitioner. . In View of the transfer order dt. 13.6.2007 (Annexure P/3) the petitioner was relieved on 21.6.2007 from Bemetara and he joined at Gurur on 25.6.2007 (Annexure P/4). By letter dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P/5) the Tahsildar - Gurur directed Shri Ramswaroop Patel to handover the charge of Patwari Halka No.11 to the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, Shri Ramswaroop Patel, filed Writ Petition (S) No. 8421 of 2007, challenging the transfer order dt. 13.6.2007, on the ground that the transfer order has been passed during the ban period, contrary to the transfer policy. This Court by order dated 17.7.2007 (Annexure 13/6), taking into account that the transfer order was not issued in conformity with the transfer policy, quashed the impugned transfer order in respect of the petitioner i.e. Shri Ramswaroop Patel. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.2007, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) N0. 3421 of 2007, filed Writ Appeal No. 204/2007 (Mohan Lal Sonbhadra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8a others) on the ground that although he was a party respondent No.4 in the writ petition but without service of notice the transfer order was quashed, which was detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court on 11.9.2007 (Annexure P/7) passed the interim order to the effect that “Till next listing, the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall remain in abeyance and respondent No.4 is restrained to function ’ at Gurur.” This interim order was extended on 13.2.2008 and \ \20.3.2008 (Annexure P/9). . In compliance of the interim order dated 1 1.9.2007, passed by the Division Bench, by order dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure P/8) Shri Ramswaroop Patel was posted in Tahsil office and charge of the Patwari Halka No. 11 was given to Shri Anil Kurnar Ganjir, Patwari of Patwari Halka No. 12. . During the pendency of the writ appeal, by the impugned order dated 1.10.2007 (Annexure P/ 1), passed by the Respondent No.2, the petitioner was transferred to Patwari Halka No. 03, Tahsil — Bemetera, District — Durg. On 7.4.2008 (Annexure P/ 10) the writ appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a writ petition challenging the order dated 1.10.2007. Thus, the petitioner has filed this petition. . By interim order dated 18.6.2008, passed in this petition, it was direc’ted to maintain status quo with regard to the posting of the petitioner, as obtained on 18.6.2008, till the next date of hearing. In compliance of the impugned transfer order dated 1.10.2007 (Annexure P/ 1), the petitioner joined his services at Bemetera on 13.5.2008 (Annexure R/ l). . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that just within a period of 3 1/2 months the petitioner has been transferred with malaflde intention only to harass him. Thus the petitioner is a victim of frequent transfer. He further submits that as there was stay of the order dated 17.7.2007, passed by this Court, by the interim order dated 11.9.2007 in writ appeal, the respondents should not have passed the impugned transfer order dated 1. 10.2007. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The petitioner has offlcer/employee be posted keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non~competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place, forever, by Court orders. 14. The transfer policy cannot be given status of rules. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View of public interest and due to administrative exigency. Transfer policy is a mere guideline for the officers. In the matter of E.P.Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anotherl the Supreme Court observed as under: “88. ...... with the vast multitudinous activities in,Which a modern State is engaged, there are bound to be some posts which require for adequate discharge of their functions, high degree of intellect and specialized experience. It is always a difficult problem for the Government to find suitable officers for such specialized posts. There are not ordinarily many officers who answer the requirements of such specialiied posts and the choice with the Government is very limited and this choice becomes all the more difficult, because some of these posts, though important and having onerous responsibilities, do not carry wide executive powers and officers may not therefore, generally be willing to be transferred to those posts, The Government has in the circumstances to make the best possible choice it can, keeping in view the larger interests of the administration. When, in exercise of this choice, the Government transfers an officer from one place to another, the officer may feel unhappy because the new post does not given him the same amplitude of powers which he had while holding the old post. But that does not make the transfer arbitrary. So long as the transfer is made on account of exigencies of administration and is not from a higher post to a lower post with discriminatory preference of a junior for the higher post, it would be valid (and not open to attack under Article 14 and 16.” ‘ 1974 (4 scc 3 ) 16. In the matter of Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and 6thers Vs. State of Bihar and othersz the Supreme Court observed as under: “4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right .to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not' violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interference with day- to—day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest.” 17. The dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the above state cases have been followed subsequently in other decisions. (See — Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another3, State of M.P. and another Vs. S.S.Koui‘av and others4 85 Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U‘P. and others5). 18. The petitioner has alleged the mala fide, but not proved. The petitioner is not questioning the validity of the transfer order on any other permissible grounds i.e. non-competence of the officer or infraction of the statutory rules and regulations. The present petition is misconceived as an employee has no statutory or legal right to posting at a particular place, as such there is no infraction of any legal or statutory right. l9. In view of the foregoing, this petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. //l m Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sdl— Thakgr 2 1991 Supp (2) scc 659 3 2004 (4) scc 245 4 1995(3) scc 27o 52007 (sy scc 150