c^ sr^~l /-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S( N0...^...'./../2009 PETITIONER Albert Tirkey S/o Late Shri Eliasa Tirkey, aged about 52 years working as Sub Inspector Police Station Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 1. »»>°''A' »^-'',,<;.'6'" ^y^ y. .^..v"^^ ^•^<y ^yy' ASA^ /•"' ^ <^ 2. 3. ^ State of Chhattisgarh thorough Secretary Home Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralay Rajpur (C.G.) Director General of Police, D.K.S. Bhawan MandTalay Raipur (C.G.) The Superintendent of Police Raigarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. The petitioner above-named mostrespectfully submits as under: - ^F^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR ^JS^QI yV;~\i \f\M /st\'Mf^ KS^T r^.s: -jnr\i \<i»/t^ i<-i^ r-y'^.Ou'-*^ '^r «:.vUi •IONER £3S: £?C'/^h, i P.C ?^ 3'^' rii.-O.r'-^i'iiLrfS-i'^ i Alln.....^ •TS!'I/^»? ;'"-^i!L>Ciii i Ei 'SvSv v ;tate of Chhsttissarh & Othsrs (Writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitutlon of India) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K, Agnihotri, J. Present;- Shri'R.S. Patei, counsei for the petitioner. Shri A VJ Oyl/4i»t*«y /-\.V. OiiUriisr, Panei Lav/yer ?or ttie State. , thi ORDER (ORAU (Passed o" this 24"'day of Novsmber, 2009) Wlth the consent of learnsd counsel aooearins for ths oetitioner Detition is hsard finaiiv. Th& pstitioner, by this petlGon, impugns the legaiity and vaSidlty of the order dated 7-11-2009 (Annexurs - P/1) whereby the petitioner has been transTerrsd from Raigarh to Bastar. Learned counsei apDearina for the oesitionsr submits thaf In the cresent piscs of posting i.e. Raigarh, the petitioner has joined on 12-6-2009 and within a period of six months, the impugned tr'ansfer ordsr dsted 7-11-2009 has bsen passed by Sransfsn'ing the pstltioner to a naxaiite infested arsa i.e. Bastar. The petitioner has ajready ser»ed in a naxaiite Infested area for a Sona oeriod and accordina to the SransTer Doiiev/clrcuiar of the State Government jf an empioyee has aiready seroed in a nexaiite infested area hs sha'.l be posted in a non-naxalite Infested area. DurinQ the course of arguments, Searned counsel appearmg for She ^petitionei' piaced his reliance upon Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Police'Act, 2007 (fpr short "ths Act, 2007"). Shri Pate! further sub'mits that no exceptionai ciroumstances are availabie for transferring the petitionsr from the pressnt p!ace of posting wlthin a perjod of fevo ysars. Thus, the impugned orderls sgslnst th©provisions .of Ssctlon 14 of the Act; 2007. iiBBBK' ^S-Sf <. ii1^-' /^\ff\ i^ /b./^ a"jp^ ^ <^/h part»fft.^« ^<<^? ^T^i''^ <i^.fl /^p^ vi»/^i^(v*^ 1f<k f^t Trf^ w ^l^ /v yi <^i^»?^a^*i.fM»^v y^ f^L'vf. a.F^ ^^ ^ °^^^^ i HSVS HSSi"^ 3SaE'HSQ COuHSSI 3pp62HH§ TOf IHS pSBIIOHSf, pSfUSSCi .iHS plSSCiH^S 3HQ ?H$ QOCUiT!icHZ3 3ppSHCiSQ tHSfSXO. 1 HS GOHISHuOH OT tl oetitioner deseives to bs rejsctsd on the simQie around that in a catsna of decisions it has been held that transfer poiicy/cirouiar is a mere guidsiine and it is not enforceable by wav of writ in exereise of wrii iurisdiction of the Hlgh Court. The iransfsr poiicy does not havs coiour of statute. Ths transfer order has bsen passed on the basis of ac'ministrativs exigency. Ths petitioner wlthout mentloning anything in the pefition about the Act, 2007 has orailv made submission. Howev.er, from bare pe-'usa! of Section 14 of the Act 2007. which SDesificallv srovides that the Poiice Officer posted ss Officsr-in-Chargs of a Poiics StaSion; or as a District Superintendent of Police, in-charge c.T a Rolica District shsii have.a minimum tsnure of two ysars, whersas, in the case on hsnd the patiiioner is not posted as Officer-ln-Charge of a poiice station. Thus, Section 14 of ths Act 2007 is not aDDlicabte to ths facts of ths orssent cass. Ths petitionsr has failed to orove the mate fde and lack of competence of ths officer Dassing ihs imDugnsa' transfer ordsr. Thus, the transfer order is jastand propsr. it is weil-settied that transfer is an incidence of ssrvice and if is for the employerto decide ssto where a particular officer/smployee be posted, keeping ln visw public interest as wel! as administratsve exigency. This Court has limited jurisdlciion to interfere with the transfer matter, sxcept in the casss of proved mai'a fsde, non-CQmpetence of authority oassing tha , Sransfsr order and not being in conformity wah the rules and-reguiations. ^ ""i"^ s uo petitionsr/empioyes cannot be perr .4 remain :at \ one piace {brsver. Under the orovisions of service rulss, emDiover has a!!,the powers ; to post an smployee at a particuiar pSace jn view of pubiic intersst.and j administrative' sxiaencv. (See EP.°oyapoe :v. State of Tami'i Nadu and'i Gowri/ Amit - ? ^ arsQther', Sh'.ipi Bose (Mrs.) ana others y. SiatsofBmar&anothef~, Unhw ofindia and another v. Janardhan Debaneth & anomef, Stafe of M.F. ana' anot'ner v. S.S.Koiirv and others' and MoM Masoad Ahmad v. State of u.P. & C'ihsrs'). in Chief Commerciai Manager, South Centras Ralhvay, Sscundsrabad & OifTers v. G. Rainsm & Ofoere , ths Suprsms Court obssr/sd as undsr: "20. It is ws'i settisd that the'Cenirai Government or ths State Government can yivs administrativs instructions to its servants how to act in certain .circurrsstances: but that wiil not make such JnstrucSlons statutory ruses which are jusiicjabie in certain circumsfances. !n ordsr that such exscutlve instructions havs the foree of satutorv rule, it must bs shown that thsv have bsen issued elthsr under the authority conferred on the i Centra' Governmeni or the State Govemment by som@ ststuts or und^r soms ofovisions of th© Constitution providing therefor. Thersfors, e'/en if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that doss not confes- any right on any member of the pubiic to ask for a writ against the Gcwemmsnt by a petition under Artrcle 226 of fhe Constitution or inasa. Even othsrwise, there is no chaiienge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissibie iegai grounds as aforesiatsd, warrantj"! Snterference with the impusned transfer order. Fof the reasons as aforestuted. the petition is dismissed at the motion teeif. Sd/- iatish K. Agnihotri Judge '"VK _" 974 (4} SCC 3 ••(1991$Supp2SCCe59 i20G4i 4 3CC 243 •:(1S95)3SCC270 ° (2007) 8 SCC 150