^- HIOH COORT <»•CHHATTIBGARH. BIIASPUR W,P,(8l Mo.4388 of 2007 PBTITIONBR RE8PONDBHTS 2. Ashok Kuinar Baajare, ayA 33 years, S/o Shri Decn Dayal Baajare, R/o Vfllagc Haidi, P.C. No. 38, TahsflBa-la, Distt. Dui^(C.O.) Versus State ofChhattisgarh, Throi^h - Secrctaiy, Revenue Departaient, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur (C.O.) Collector, Duig(C.O.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARnCL®2MOF THB coNsnTimoii OF WDIA Appearance: Shri Ajay Shriyastava, counsel for fhe petitioaer. Shri YasIuffaatSiagh, Qovt. Adirocate for the State on advaace copy ORALORDBR (01.08.2007) SOniL KUMAR8IMHA. J. Hcard. The petitioner, who is working on thc post ofl^itwari, Issea chaUenged his order of transfer dated 7.7.2007 (Aiuiexuic-P/1), by wliich, he has toeen trausferred fiom P.C. No.38 Berla, District Duif to P.C. No. 23, Nawagarh, Distriet Duq; on adimuustratwe grounds. Learaed oounsel for fhe petitioner subinits fhat tfae aforesaid traasfer as against fhe traasfer policy,as the petitkmcr has been transfeEred prtor to coaapletioa ofhls 3 ycaa-s period at the present place ofposting. He submits that he is worfeing at Beria since last 15 nionths, thcrefore, tfais toaasfer is a cSear violation of tcansfer poUcy dated 13th Juae, 2007 i&amed by thc State. In fhe matter of ^n <tf JmU Il^ fiU^ ^ JE993 SC 3444, it has been held by fhe Apex Court fhat the guideliaes issued by the Govemmeat about the traarfer of Ooverrunent exnployee do not comfer upon the Qovenuaitent nil ^' ('- ^i .- 2 W.P.(S) No. 4385 of2(M>7 employee a legalty enforceable r^jht. It has also beeu held vide paia 7 offhc aforesaid judgment thatwho should be traasferred where, is a naatfer fbr fhe appiopriate authorily to decide. Uiifess the order of transfer is vitiated by inatafldes or is aiade in violation ofany statutoiy piovisioas, the Court caiinot interfere with it. However, it has been furthcr held that whfle ordaii% the teansfer, therc is no doubt, the autfaority niust keep in mind the guldelines issued by the Govermnent on fhe subject Further in fhe matter of State »t DJP. w»&v^Swra w. Gabtirdhean £al. 3004 AIR SCW Z082. it has bcea observed by the Apcx Court that even adnuntetEatlve guMeliaes for regulating traasfers or contatoing transfer policies at best may afford an opportimily to the officer or servant coaeemed to approach their h^tier authorities for redress but caiuiot have the consequence ofdeprivlng or denying fhe coinpetent au&Qrily to transfer a pardcular ofEcer/servaat to any place ia pubUc iaterest and as jss found necessitated by cxigencies ofscmceaa long as tfae official status is not aflfected adversely aad fhcre is no iafiaction of auy career piospects such as sendorily, acale of pay and seeured emoluments. The Apex Court has ftather observed that fhe oidcr oftcaasfer xnade even in tran^gression of adminlstrative guideliaes cannot also be interfered withi, as they do not coufer any legaBy enforeeable rights, unless, as noMced supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is inade in violation ofany statutoiy provision. Haviag gone throi^h fhe coatents of tte writ pctltioa and after hearfng the counsel for the petitioner, I do not flnri aay ground of laalaGdes or extraneous caasiderattoa or a gn>und of vfolatioa of any statutoiy Rules or Act ia fhe aiatter cS ftaasaSKi of the petitfoner wan-anting iaterference by this Court iiader Ardck 226 ofthe Constitution oftndia. Thls petitlon fflcd on the grouad of vtolation of fhe ppMcy onfy canaot be entertaincd. The sam.e vs Uabte to be disaiissed and is dismissed at the inotton stegp iteelf. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatU