^i^ A 'P^ \ov ^ov PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.2012 OF 2009 Jagat Ram Dadsena. S/o Shri Kanhaiyaram, aged about 45 years, R/o village Pussour, Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Mahila Avam Bal Vikas Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 2. The Director. Mahila Avam Bal Vikas Department, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 3. The Project Officer, Development Projeot, Raigarh(CG). Integrated Child Pussour, Distrtet (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Anand Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioner. Mls Sunita Jajn, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 17m day of April, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 13-2-2009 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the petrtioner worldng as A^istant Grade -1 has been transferred from Raigarh to Durg. 3) The petitioner jmpugns the transfer order only on the ground that the petitioner is Assistant Grade - I i.e.da^ - III employee and the petitioner cannot be transferred from one district to other district in accordance with the circular dated 30-8-1997 (Annexure - P/2). 4) The petitioner has not raised any other ground to impugn the validity of the transfer order. On perusal of the circular dated 30-8-1997. it appears that the circular is only to the effect that in an ordinary circumstances there should not be a transfer of class - III & IV employees from one district to other district. There is no complete embargo on transfer of class - III & IV employees from one district to other district. Thus. it cannot be hetd that there is violation of circular dated 30-8-1997. 5) Law in case of transfer is well settied that the Court should interfere only in those cases wherein there is a complain of mala fide exercise of power, 2-"- "^SteSS^ infraction of rul^, regulations and competence of the officer concerned passing the impugned order. The petitioner is not alleging any mala fide exercise of power except that this was done against the circular dated 30-8-1997. So far as the administrative exigency is concerned, the same cannot be a subjest matterofjudicial review unl^s the contrary is proved. 6) The courts or tribunals, which are appellate authorities should refrain from considering the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. (See State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal1. 7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others2 summed up the ^sope of interference jn exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Arttele 226 of the Constitution of India, as under: "7. The scope of judfdal review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy v. Union of Indla, National HyfSvelectric Power Capn- l-td- vr. Shri Bhagwan, State Bsnk of India v. Anjsn Sanyal. Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and OnkarNath Thvan v. Chief Engineer, Minor IrringaVon Deptt. has held that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the semce conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the court flnds that either the order is mala fide or that the sen/ice rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the ordere." 8) Applying the well settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases to the facts of the case on hand. wherein there is no chatlenge to the Jmpugned transfer order on the ground of infraction of rules or non-competence of the officer passing the transfer order. The transfer policy/circular is mere guidelines to be observed by the officers while passing the orders. The transfer poticy/circular is not mandatory in nature and does not attajn the status of the service rules. Thus, this petition does not warrant any jnterference by this Court. 9) Thus, this writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. 1 (2004) 11SCC 402 2 (2007) 8 SCC 150 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge