)^.. SIN61E BENCH ^ r.k ^°'s -s^-' BEFORE THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Sl N0. t. / 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS La/\^'V >...^^^ ^-y^ ^yy <>••• •^ Rajeev Tyagi, S/o Shri O.P. Tyagi, aged about 55 years, presently posted as Range Officer, Amarwati, South Kondagaon, Forest Division Kondagaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department Forest, Mantralaya, D.K.8. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) Divisional Forest Offlcer, South Kondagaon, Forest Division Kondaga.an (C.G.) 3) Mahendra Kumar Yadu, S/o not known to the petitioner, presently posted at Forest Range Officer, Mulmula, South Kondagaon, Forest Division Kondagaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILA8PUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (8) No. 4887 of2011 Rajeev Tyagi. RESPONDENT8 VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh &0thers. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITTjnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Asmhotri, J. Present: Shri Abhishck Sinlia, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Shashaiik Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 25th day ofAugust, 2011) Challenge iri tfais petition is to fhe order dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure P/l), whereby, the petitionen working as Raiige Officer, Aiiirawati, South Kondagaon, Forest Division Kondagaon, has been transferred to Game Range Pasewada, Indrawati Tiger Reserve, Bijapur, on adniinistrative gt'ounds. Slm Sinha, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no vacant post of Range Qfficer available at the transferred place i.e. Indrawati Tiger Reser^e, Bijapur as one Shii Gumadi Chalmaiya is ah-oady posted at that place and he has not been transfen'ed to any other place. He further submits that the impugned transfer is an outeome of mala flde exercise of power and to accommodate the respondent No. 3. He further submits that the petitioner was transferred to the present place on his own request, thus, under the policy of the State Govemment, he is entitled to continue there for at least three years. It is next contended that the petitioner is having various ailments and he has been transferred to a naxalite infested area. ^^'^s-^ .<^;S3%. /t':s% "\ It^l %^^ ^ 3. The petitioner has not submitted any document in support ofhis allegation of mala fide, except the self-same statement, which is not sufficient to hold that tliere was a malafide exercise ofpower. To establish mala fide, there should be strong cogent reasons. Thus, the allegation ofmalafide is unfounded. 4. So far as allegation of accommodating the respondent No. 3 is concemed, there is no merit in the case as in place ofan employee who has been transfen'ed, some other employee is to be posted on account of vacancy created by the transfer. Thus/ even i£ according to leamed counsel for the petitioner, is accommodation, that camiot be a ground for setting aside the transfer order. 5. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. violation of any statutoiy mles or regulations or lack ofcompetence ofthe officer, passing the impugned order. 6. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the policies ai'e mere guidelines and not controlled by statLitoiy provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is confeiTed upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others1). 7. It is also well-settled that transfer is an mcidence 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 exigcncy. This Court has limited jurisdiction to irtterfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved (2007)83cc212 ^ 8. maki flde^ non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being m conformity with the mles and regiilations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions ofsendce mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public mterest and administi'ative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another2, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another3, State ofM.P. and another v. SXKoura\? and others andlUohd MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P, & Others5). In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Howeven if there is no vacant post available at the ti'ansfen'ed place i.e. Game Range, Pasewada, Indrawati Tiger Reseive, Bijapur, the impugned order dated 10»08.2011 (Annexure P/l) shall not be given effect to till proper order posting the petitioner at at place where clear vacant post is available^ is passed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Aimt (1974)43cc 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 (19S5)3SCC270 (2007) 8 SCC 150