6) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. L( °6^ / 2011 PETITIONER ^•A\^< ^y' r i.-" / .** ^ ^^/ °^ . <.v \'-y ..•^^•r v' .^>"^> ^•' ^' ..-•^•^ y^ .A ^> ^ RESPONDENTS / Parraeshwar Bhardwaj S/o Shri F>uni Ram Bhardwaj, aged about 41 years, Working as Upper Division Teacher Posted at Government Middle School Godhiyari, Block Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS ^l) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) .3) The District EduGation Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) /4) The Block Education Officer, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIO.N OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATLTRE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. ^^^y G^- ')*^ w HIGH CQURT QF_CHHArnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 4086 of20U Parmeshwar Bhardwaj. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofCfahattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETI'nON UNDER ARIICLE 226 OF THE CONS'ITmHQN OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Present: Sfari U.R.Koshaley, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. (Passed on 28th day ofJuly, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby fhe petitioner, working as Upper Division Teacher, at Govemment Middle School, Godihari, Sarangarh, has been transferred to Middle School, Baramkela, District Raigarh, on admmisrtrative grounds. Contention of Shri Koshaley, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner is that fhe petitioner has been transferred in violation of fhe transfer policy ofthe State as the petitioner has not completed IVz years of service at the present place. He further submits that after his transfer from the present place, there will be no science teacher in that school, as no one has been posted at his place and thus, the students have to suffer. On perusal ofthe transfer poliey, it is evident that the requirement ofposting at a particular place for 2 */2 years is not mandatory but it only provides for posting a person at a particular plaee for a maximum period of2 l/i years and not more than that. In the case, according to the petitioner, the petitioner has been transferred within a period of 10 months. The petitioner has not challenged the rmpugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. exercise of mala flde or violation of any statutory mles or regulations or lack of competenee of the officer, passing the impugned order. 6. 7. Amit Even otherwise, it is well settled that the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The eftect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others'). It is also well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for fhe employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public iirterest as well as admuustrative exigency. This Court has lunited jiirisdiction to mterfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved maki flde, non-competence of authority passing fhe transfer order and not being in confonnity with the rules and regulations. Tbe petitioner/employee carmot be pemiitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions ofservice mles, employer has aU the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view ofpublic interest and aAmnistrative e;dgeney. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another , State of M.P. and another v. S.SXourav cmd others andMoM MasoodAhmad v. State qfU.P. & Others5). 8o far as vacancy ofthe post of science teacher created on account of fhe transfer of the petitioner is conceraed, it is far the State Govemment to look into the matter and make proper arrangement so that the education ofthe students may not be hampered. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. ____— Sd/- , . ! SatishK.Agnihotri Judge l(2007)83cc212 2(1974)4SCC3 3(2004')4SCC245 4(1S95)3SCC270 5(2007)SSCC15Q