HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P.ISl N0.4342/3007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Awadh Kishor Shanna, Aged about 58 years, S/o Late Shri Ramcharan Lal Sharaaa, workmg as Agricultural Development Officer, Rajaandgaon, District Rajnaadgaon (Chfaatdsgarh) Versus 1. State ofCbhattisgarh, Through the Secretaiy, Department ofAgricuJtiire, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Mantraiaya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Collector, Rajnaadgaon (Clihattisgarh) 3, Depiily Director Agriculture Rajnaadgaon (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 326 OP THE CONSTITUTION OSLINDIA Appearance: Shri Jitendra Pati aiid Shri Prashant Mishra, coiinsel for the Petitioner. ,. Shri Yashwant Suigh, Govt. Advocate for the State on advance copy ORAL ORDER (31.07.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. Tbe petitioner, who is worlcing on the post of Agriculture Development Officer, Rajiuandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) has chaUenged his orier ofti-ansfer dated 29.6.2007, hy which, he has been transferred from Rajnandgaon to Dantewada on adinuiistrative groiinds. Leamed coiinsel for th.e pRtitioner subimt that the traasfer of the petitioner has been affected violatiDg the transfcr policy dated 13th June 2007 (Aimexure P-2). They submit that according to clause 2 (1) of the policy, the trarisfei's are to be effected on the W.P.<SlNo.4342/2007 A recoinniendations of ihe Minister concemed, but in case of the petitioner, no such recommendation has been taken. They also subnut that the order bas been pasaed in violatiQn ofclause 5 (e) of the said policy, because cRi-tain fonnalities have not been contpleted. TTieir over all siihniission is that. the transfer order passed in violation ofthe ti-ansfer policy should bc set aside. In the matter of Union ofJndla- Vs- S.L. A&&QS, AIS 1993 SC 3444, it has been held by the Apex Court fhat the guideliues issued by the Govemnient about the tranafer of Govemrocnt emptoyee do not confer upon the Goveminent employee a legalty enforceable right It has also been held vide pai-a 7 ofthe aforesaid jiidginent that who shoiuld be transfeiTed where, is a inatter for the appropriate authority to decide. Untess the onjer of transfer is vitiated by inalafides or is laade in violation of any statutoiy provisions, the Court caruiot interfen" with it. However, it. has been fiirflier held that. while oideriug the transfer, thene is no doubt, the authority must keep in niind tjie giiidelines issiied hy fhe Govemnient on the subiect. Further in the matter of S&tate «f U.P. emd others vs. Go&ardftan Lal, 3004, AXR SCW SS082, it has been observed by tlie Apex Court that even adininistTative: giudelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best roay affori an opportiinity to the officer or servant. concemefl to approach their lugher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent aufhority to transfer a particular officer/sei-vant to any place in public iiiterest and as is found necessitated by exigeocies of sei-vice as tong as the offictel status is not affected adversdy and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay aiid secuTed enioliuaents. The Apex Court has fiirthcr observed tliat the order oftfansfer niade even ra transgression of adTninistrative guidelmes cannot. also be Mterfered with, as they do not confer any tegally enforceable rights, uiiless, as noticed siipra, shown to be vitiated by inala fides or is made in violatioa of auy statutoiy provision. W.P.fS^No.4342/2007 Shiffia Havimg heani leamed coiinsel for the petitioner, havmg gone ttirough the contents of the petition and having pcrused the contents of the policy, I do not find eithcr any ground of malafide or a ground of extraiieous coDsideratioi) or a groTind ofviolation of fhe-. statutoiy nite or Act in the matter of transfer of the ^titioner warrantmg interference by this Court. This petition ffled on thc ground of violafion of the policy ouly cannot he entertamed. The same is liabte to be disnussed aiid is dismissed at the motion staee ifcself. Sdl- SunilKumarSinha judge