(‘f'la’a7 f IN THE HON’BLE HIGH C$URT OF CHHATTISGARH v AT BILASPUR w. p. 1S} No.41bk?! /2009 / PETITIONER : D.K. Gupta; S/o Late Bhuwaneshwar Prasad, aged about 45 years, Block‘ Education Officer, Lundra P.S. and Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) _ VERSUS / ESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes Development Department, Mantrayalay, D.K.S. / Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Collector (Tribal Development) Surguja, Ambikpur (C.G.) 3; Commissioner, Schedule Caste/ Schedule Tribes /‘ Development Deptt., Raipur (C.G.) 4. Manirarn yadav, S/o Shri Shiv Narayan Yadav, Aged about 45 years Lecturer Eklavya Residential School Sarina Distt. Jashpur, (C.G.) Parmanerit R/o Lundra Tah.& P.S.- Lundra Distt. Surguja (C.G.) N WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTETU'HON or mom 1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER : As given above in the‘ cause title. 2) M PARTICULARS OF THE RESPC‘NDENTS : As given above in the cause title. t"\ kl r-a R §;££E_§Qi}? ”TY w V M 3 LN Hi‘i‘i’i’IQN ( S) Ne. 6744 $2009 }"§3’i‘ITEQNE U D.K.Gupta. VERSUS Sfaie ofChIwitisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION 1 JNDER ARTICLE 226 GF THE CONSTITUHON OF INDIA x RESPONDENTS SB: Hon’bie Shri $atish K. Aggg'gmtri. J. Wesent Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate fer the petitioner. Shri A V. Shridhar, Panei Lawyer fer the State/respendents 1 to 3. Shri Vivek Kumar Pandey, Advocaie for the caveator/respcndent No. 4 ORDER ORAL) (Passed at: i8 day of November, 2009) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is a Junior Principal and posted as Incharge, Btoo}: Esiuoatiom Officer, Lundrat Dietrict Surguja, has bow ire1t§ferred to the ofiice of Assiatant Cos’mm35ioxieé‘, To)“: Beveloomem, Surguja by the impugned order dated )L‘ November, 2009 (A'mexure PXI). The grounds for challenge to the impogned transfer order are that the petitioner is working as Block Education 0E1cer, therefore he cannot be {meted at any other glace where iris salary is less than what he Was drawing. Secondly, he should have been trahsferred only on the post of Block Education Offloer; and not on any other post. Thirdly, a person junior to the petitioner has been tansferred in his place. 3. The above contentions are noticeo to be rejected as firstly, the substantial 90st ofthe petitioner is Junior Principal. He was posted a's Incharge Bloclg Education Otiieer, therefore, his claim that he should be pester! es Block Education Ott‘mer only’and not on any other post is baseless and frivolous. The second ground that by the impugned transfer, his pay scale may be affected is Without any basis, as the pay scale Whatever the petitioner is drawing on his substantive pest, shall b'e protected. The contention of the petitioner that his junior has been posted as Block Education Officer, in his 3E\ éé 2 gilace, is not tenabie in law as the seniority’af an empioyee is relevant only for The purpose of promotion, n01 for the posting. ii is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service ami it is for the employer to decide asto Where a particular oificer/employee be posted: keeying 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 malafxde: 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 ERRoyappa v. State of Tamil Nada and another}, {Mica oflndia and another v. Jamrdhan Debanare & another}, State ofMP. arid another v. S.S.Kogrrav am? other? and‘Mohd. Masoad Ahmad v. Slate ofzm & mama 5. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the transfer policy issued by the State Government is coneemed; transfer policy is mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The eifect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: ChiefCommercz‘al Manager, South Central Railway, Secundambad (if-Others v. G. Ramam & Otherss). Even othmwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any pennissible legal, grounds as aforestated. warranting interference. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. 'll974 (4) SCC 3 2 (2004) 4 SCC 245 s (19953 3 scc.27o 4 {7mm g soc Ho Seaman: _ Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri 3 ' Judge ‘2 1