^ ^j^>/^ ^-:"^yrff^\...-" 'a^\^'"^ ^SX--^"' ^^|^S~? SSRlsi S" ilr".s. p.^' p<e&* i»tt* IN THE HON-BLE HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR {£&} WftrTPETTTrON (S)NO. ^S-2:/OE2009 PETITTON6R : Fagnurom Kawasi S/o. Shri fiuru Kawasi aged about 48 Years, Occupation - Service. Posted as Patwari at Halka No. 12 Chandragi'ri Tahsil - Darbha, Distt.- Jagdalpur ( C.6.) V^RSUS RESPON&ENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh. through the Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.6.) 2. The Collector, Jagchlpur, E)istt.- Jagdalpur (C.6.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIO.ES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTtON OF INDIA FOR ISSUEANCE OF APPROPRIATE WKIT. i ©• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (S) No. 5827 of 2009 Fagnuram Kawasi VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh & another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF_ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Heard. O R D ER (Oral) (Passed on this 8th day of October, 2009) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 1.10.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Collector, Jagdalpur i.e. Respondent No.2. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred at the present place of posting i.e. Patwari Halka No. 12 Chandragiri, Tahsil Darbha, District Jagdalpur, whereas he has not completed five years at the present place of posting. By the impugned order dated 1.10.2009, the petitioner has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 21, Badeghodsara, Tahsil - Makdi. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009 as many as 67 Patwaris have been transferred and posted, looking to the administrative exigency and public interest. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies on a Circular dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/3), wherein it is stated that a list of all the Patwaris, who are working for the last five years be prepared and sent so that the steps can be taken for their placement. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of the circular dated 29.8.2009, I do not find that there is any '^ restricdon from transferring a Patwari before completion of five years. 6. Submission of the petitioner is contrary to the well-settled principle of law that if there is any violation of any executive instructions that may not be the ground for interfering with the transfer order. Thus, the aforesaid contention that the transfer order has been passed contrary to the circular/policy issued by the Government, is rejected. 7. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a pardcular officer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdicdon 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 conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the 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 another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another2, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another3, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others4 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others5). 8. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the circular/policy dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/3) is concerned, the circular/policy is mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See Chief Coinmercial Manager, ' 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 3(2004)4SCC245 4(1995)3SCC270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 .^^s-^-o,^. ^;"-?" ^^ 9 fc..^ ill '^"SSi- South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Rcitnain & Others6) 9. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the iinpugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warranting interference with the impugned transfer order. 10. For the reasons as afore-stated, the petition is dismissed. Tbakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge