IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl No. •il^ OF 2008^ xs PETITIONER RESPONDENTS »\c Rakesh Kumar Bhoi Aged about 45 years S/o Shri Akrur Bhoi, Occupation: Service, Working as Station House Officer, Police Station Bhupdeopur, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home (Police), Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Superintendent of Police, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OR WRITSIN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, ^ERTIORARLPROHIBITION. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, QRDERS^OR ORDERS OR THE LIKE yy- ^^^-^ ....••"^'••.^..v--' ,^x> ^s.^ '^?^.. ^^ "^ y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4818 of 2008 PETITIONER : Rakesh Kumar Bhoi Versus RESPONDENTS The State ofC.G. and others. Post for pronouncement ofthe order on 2.0.8.2009. 8d/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge i^^~1^^ ...^' Lf- -^^^o^ g<>x l^~ ^j€ ^.^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGHATBU.ASPUR PETmONER (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Dhwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4818 of 2008 Rakesh Kumar Bhoi VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of C.G. & others. Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents /State. WRITPETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA ORDER (50.08.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the parties the petition is heard finally. 2. Challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 17.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 by which the petitioner who is working as Station House Officer, Police Station Bhupdeopur, District Raigarh has been transferred to District Bijapur. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.8.2008 passed by respondent No.4 by which he was relieved to join in his transferred place i.e. Bijapur. 3. Counsel for the petitioner subm'rts that in the present place of posting the petitioner had joined on 12.2.2008 (Annexure P-8) and therefore before expiry ofthe period oftwo years he should not have been transferred. He submits that though the petitioner had already remained in Bijapur which is a naxallite affected area, he has again been sent there. Further contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in Writ Petition No. 4200/2008 by order dated 1.8.2008 this Court had passed an order to the effect that till the decision of the representation no coercive steps would be taken against th^ petitioner but despite this order, the petitioner was relieved. ' -ry.-' "-.i •'^ '-..—--'' 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste community and in view of the circular dated 12.6.2008 issued by the State Government the petitioner cannot be subjected to frequent transfer on administrative exigency as has been done in the case of the petitioner. hte further submits that as the petitioner is a member of scheduled caste community, he is being harassed by the authorities subjecting him to frequent transfers that too in the naxallite affected areas. 5. Per contra counsel for the respondents/State submits that vide impugned order dated 17.6.2008 the petitloner has been transferred onadministrative ground and on account of the transfer order, on 19.8.2008 he was rightly relieved by the respondent No.4. In respect of order dated 1.8.2008 passed by this Court it has been submitted by the State Counsel that the order of this Court was not within the knowledge of the Superintendent of Police who had relieved the petitioner and ultimately the writ petition was decided on 1 0.9.2008 by a speaking order. He submits that the undertaking given was "no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, till the disposal of the representation" which means that the petitioner would not be subjected to any departmental action for not joining in the transferred place. According to him, so far as the grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has again been transferred to Bijapur, it is argued by the counsel for the respondents/State that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency and he has no right to remain in a particular place of his own choice. He further submits that even as per the policy of the State Government the minimum period prescribed for the Inspectore to serve in the naxallite affected area is five years but it does not prescribe the maximum time limit with regard to their posting in such areas. Relevant portion of the policy of the State Government reads as under: 4. Pi'?l<a<t> wf ^ ^rasr ^f :- (i) (ii) Q 3- »w Br ^r Wcpf ^ <ti(fei<t>tR'qT ^t ^ps^f ^' ^cf 'tl<tl<t>lcl ^T ^T ^ ^»T 05 q^ ^WScS Wf^SQ ^3ff ^" yf W^ ?hlT 1 4<<1"lRl W ITS.PT 4<{«»l|t<'11 03 ?^ 'i<t0cn fSraT ^' ^t urrt'ft i drtii^id SFZT l^raT ^' q^srwTT <R f^^x f^IT W^'TT I Thus according to the State counsel it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that as he has already served in the naxallite affected area once, he can not be posted in such area again. He submits that the minimum period of posting in the naxallite area according to the policy of the State Government is five yeare but no maximum time limit for being posted in such areas has been prescribed in the same. He submits that in this case the petitioner remained in the naxallite area onty for a period of three years. He further submits that the petitfoner can not take the advantage of the transfer policy of the Government dated 1.4.2006 because they are merely the guidelines having no statutory force. 6. As regards the harassment meted out to the petitloner at the hands of the authorities on account of his belonging to scheduled caste community, it has been argued by the state counsel that in the admihistrative exigency any employee can be transferred to any place irrespective of the community he belongs to. This apart, no material has been placed by the petitioner to demonstrate that it is only the officers belonging to the scheduled caste community are being shifted to the naxailite affected areas and not the othere. He further submits that in the State of Chhattisgarh out of 16 revenue districts 12 have been declared as naxallite affected areas and therefore ttie police officers are bound to be transferred to such aceas irrespective of caste and creed as is alleged by the petitioner in this case. i 7. Heard counset for the parties and perused the materis available on record. 8. It is settled law that transfer is an incidence of service and a government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right 4- •vy to remain posted at the place of his own choice. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order; instead affected party shouid approach the higher authoriiies in the department apprising them of their grievances. Which'government ser/ant Is to be posted where is the exciusive consideration of the employer. Even if the petitioner has compieted a period of five years in the Naxailite affected areas, it does not mean that he has got exemption from being posted in such areas again. It would not be out of place to mention that no maximum period with respect to their posting in such areas has been stipulated in policy of the Government. If administrative exigency so warrants any government servant can be posted anywhere and such decision taken by the Government is always in consonance with the judiciai pronouncements of the Supreme Court In series of cases. Further the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate the fact that as he belongs to the scheduled caste community, he is being subjected to frequent transfer that too in naxallite affected areas and therefore the order impugned cannot be interfered with only on the basis of vague aliegations of maia fides. 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned transfer order does not suffer from any lliegaiity or infirmity warranting interference with the same. The petition is absolutely without substance and therefore the same is liabie to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. 10. Before parting with the case, this Court hopefully expects the high ranking police officers of the State of Chhattisgarh to inculcate a sense of enthusiasm amongst the police personnel so as to combat the noforious anti social elements active in the State and redeem the innocent State dwellers from the deplorable condition being faced by them, by depioying the police machinery at the places irrespective of the Naxallite ridden ones if administrative exigency indeed so demands. .__—- - —^- T,-~—~- pritinkerDiwaker ^ Judge Wl