0 8 ‘k"¢{@ \/ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR §CHHATTISGARHI WRIT PETITION1S! NOg & $$ [201 1. / PETITIONER: Smt.Ganga Thakur, wife of Sardar Singh, aged about 42 years, caste Gond, residence of Haaram Para, Geedam, Tahsil Geedam, District South Bastar, Dantewada, I ‘J 6‘“ Chhattisgarh. VerSUS Resgondents /1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. . Director Health Services, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Collector, South Bastar Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. . Chief Medical and Health Offlcer, South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattjsgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ww_ . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH I BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5488 OF 2011 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 23'“ day of September, 201 1) ‘ Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15m July, 2011 (Annexure — P/1) whereunder the petitioner has been transferred from District Hospital, Training Center, Dantewada to Community Health Center, Konta, on administrative grounds. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order dated 15th July, 2011 could not be served upon the petitioner immediately and the same was served only on 12'“ September, 2011, thus, the impugned transfer is bad on the ground that the same was served beyond the period prescribed in the transfer policy, Thus, the impugned order may be quashed. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. exercise of mala fide or violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence ofthe officer, passing the impugned order. The impugned transfer order cannot be declared as bad merely on the ground that the same was served upon the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Dantewada, after a period of two months i.e. on 12m September, 2011 and, thereafter, it was served on the petitioner, though the authorities have paid the salary to the petitioner without any interruption. Delay in service of the transfer order, which is also not given effect before service on the petitioner, cannot be faulted with. Q3 PETITIONER Smt. Ganga Thakur Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Gowri Be that as it may, it is well settled that the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others1). It is also well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide‘ non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. 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 administrative exigency. (See E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and anotherz, Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar & anothera, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others4, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. x @V Sd/- SATISH K. ANGN'H-IORI Judge 3 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 1995) 3 SCC 270 2007) 8 SCC 150 2009) 8 SCC 337 4 5 ( 6 ( ( 1 (2007) 8 scc 212 2 1974 (4) scc 3