SINGLE BECH N 0€!a/a7/_\ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P (S) N0. uogkx /2010 Vinod Kumar Verma, S/o. R.P. Verma, aged about 58 years, R/o. Darripara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1]? State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector (Tribal Welfare), Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Commissioner (Tribal Welfare) Chhattisgarh‘ Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Vipin Vinod Khare (V.V. Khare), Headmaster, Middle School, Ranpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4 PETITIONER RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA v W . . _.‘ powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another’, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anotherz, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anotherg, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others" and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State o'f U.P. & Others5). In Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, , Secunderabad & Others v. G.‘ Ratnam & Others6, the Supreme Court observed as under : “20. It is well settled that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not~make such instructions statutory rules which are justiciable in certain circumstances. In order that such'executive instructions have the force of statutory rule, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provisions of the Constitution providing the’refor.' Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. " 6. Even othenNise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference with the impugned transfer order. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sdl- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri I Judge