w<^ (^2 \sff1 L^~ :^%i IN THE HON'BLB HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR W. P. (Sl N0. (£&^2-QF2009 PETITIONER Aasharam Uikey, aged about 47 years, S/o Shri P.L. Uikey, Junior Sub Inspector, R/o City Kotwali, Durg, Districf-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS •-&9" ^y^ ./• .*' ^7": y^ffyy ^M^ f~ —?.'' ^ *' .^'y ^'^y v-sy : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. The Director General of Police, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Police Headquarter Raipur (C.G.) / 3. The Superintendent of Police, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T»-A-*a4T»-»^iLXTT.A.v^<'t-^<sjaLn»T»i»=ir^i[5iaa?Fert»rf"suM-«sji^-^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WR!T PETITION (S) N0.6822 OF 2009 PETITIQNER Aasharam Uikey State or Chhattisgarh and others rit petition under Articies 226 of the Constitution of india) tench: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Snri Prateek Sharma, counsel tbr the petltioner Shri P. K. Bshduri, Pane! Lawver for ^nei & •r ^Qs ^tr'^rl^-tW'^fS^ ifes* VV'ith the consent of iearned counsei for the parties, the petjtion was heard nnal!v. (2) By this petitlon, the petitioner chailenges the iegality and vaiidity of the order dated 12-11-2009(Annexure P/1) passed by the Director Generai of Poiice (Admlnistration), Police Headquarter, Raipur whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Durg to District Narayanpur. (3) Learned counsei appearing for the petitloner submits that since 1993 to 2008, the petitioner was posted in naxalite infested areas i.e. Dantewada, Jashpur etc. in the month of August, 2008, the petitioner v/as transferred to District Durg and within a short span of one year, thrse times the petitioner was posted in various piaces of Distrid Durg. Again by the irnpugned order dated 12-11-2009, the petitioner was transferred fro.m District Durg to naxaiite Infested area i.e.Narayanpur which is contrary' to the policy/guidelines prescribed by the Government. Leamed counsel further submits that without assigning any reason of administrative exigency, the petitioner has been fransferred to a naxaiite-infested area. The wife of the petitioner is suffering from heart disease and in the event of execution of impugned transfer order, she shail suffer irreparable ioss on account of non' avail^oility of proper medicai treatment. Thus, this petltion. (4) ! have hsard and the documents counsel for the parties, perused the pieadings thereto. Flrstiy, the petitioner was transferred '•w '^~.^-.-rf;iR'?'J" -2- from Police Station-Purani Bhiial, Durg to Sanjari Poiice'Chowki.Police Station-Dondilohjara, District-Durg and thereafter vide order dated 05-10-2009, he was again transferred frorn Sanjari Police Chov/ki, Police Station-Donailohjara, DJstrict Durg to Poiice Station-City' Kot«vali, District Durg. !t is totally an internal posting 'A'ithin the same District, vimich cannot be heid as transfer from one District to another District. By the imguaned order datsd 12-11-2009 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner was transferrsd from District Durg to District Narayanpur after a perlod of about 15 months. It is evident that the petitioner has not chailenssd the transfer order on the ground of proved maiaflde, lack of competence of the offlcer passing the order. As far as the contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order has been passed against the transfer policy/guidelines is concerned, it is a trife iaw that transfer policy is a mere guideiine and it is not enforceabie by vvay of a writ in exereise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. This Court is ofthe view that there is no irregutarity or iliegaiity or unreasonableness in the order impugned herein. (5) Be that as it may, it is weii settied that the transfer is an incidence of sei-vice and it is for the empicyer to decide asto where a particuiar officer/employee be posted, teeping in view public interest as wei! as adrninistrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdictlon to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved malafide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conrormity with the ruies and reguiations. The petitioner/empioyee cannot be permitted to remain at one piace forever. Under the provisions of seivice rules, ernployer has ali the powers to post an employee at a particuiar place in viev/ of pubiic interest and adminlstrative exigency. (See E. P. Royappa v. State of Taml! Nadu and another', Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another'', State of M. P. and another v. S. S. Kourv and others and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U. P. & others4). Even other.'/ise, the transfer is not a punishmeni but it is an incldence of service. Thus, fhe impugned orders are unexceptionable. 1974(4)3cc3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 (1995) 3 SCC 270 (2007'8SCC150 •.^••^•^SS ^S^^^ V ^ (6) The Supreme Court, in Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others,3 heid that "!n a matter of transfer of a government smpioyee, scope of judicial review is iimited and the High Court 'A'ou'd not interfere with an order of transfer iightly, be it at interim stage or final hearina. This is so because the courts do not substitute their ov/n decision in the matter of transfer." (7) !n view of the foregoing, the petition, belng devoid of merit^ is dismissed at the motlon stage itself. f -------—-—.-., 1 ^. Sd/- 1 Satish K. Agnihotri i Judge