$ C^) <9~Q SlngIeBench IN THE HON 'BLE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) No.M^O'Z /2011 Petitioner ^" VERSUS Respondents ^ €)^^ ..yS^ •:^^y 1: 2. ^ ^•"^ 3. <••"" ^^'^ ^ ^•" ^0' Ratan Ram Kashyap (R.R.Kashyap) S/o Late Shri Suma.ru Ram Kashyap, Aged about 52 years, Occupation -- Service, Forest Ranger, Forest Range Officer, Range Machkot, Forest Division, Bastar at Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Conservator of Forest (Circle Bastar) at Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Bastar at Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to vSiibmit as under:- HIGHCQURTOFCHHATnsa^RHATBILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4802 of2011 Ratan Ram Kashyap (R.R.Kashyap) RESPONDENTS VERSU8 State ofChhattisgarh & Others. •>r WEIT PETITION UNDER AR'HCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITLITION OF INDIA SB: Hon»bieShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ^ ^ / Present: Shri Subhash Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ansn Sao, Govenmient Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 23rd day ofAugust, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) whereby the petitioner, working as Forest Ranger, at Forest Range, Machkot, ¥orestDivision Bastar, Jagdalpur, has been transferred to Forest Depot, Suknia, Forest Division Sukma, District Dantewada, on administrative grounds. Shri Yadav, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 ofthe State Govemment. He fuilher submits that fhe petitioner being the Treasurer of the Bastai* Branch of the CKhattisgarh Scheduled Tribe Govemment Employees Weltare Union^ camiot be trasisferred before completion ofhis two terms as perthe circular dated 24.06.1998 (Amiexure P/5). The circular dated 24.06.1998 (.-^nnexure P/5) which prescribes guidelines for transfer ofoffice bearer ofthe employee's union, amendments have been made and now, only tiie President and Secretary ofthe Union are exempted Irom transfer for a period of three years. The word 'treasurer9 and 'two terms' have been deleted and the drcular dated 24.06.1998 has been adapted even in the circular date 25.08.2004 without any amendment. Thus, the petitioner being Treasuren is not entitled to any relaxation of transfer under the circular dated 24.06.1998 read with circular dated 25.08.2004. ^H ./ 4. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. exercise of mala fide or violation of any statutory mles or regulations or lack of competence ofthe officer, passingthe impugned order. 5. Even othci'wise, it is well settled that the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutoiy provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is confen'ed upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others]). 6. It is also well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in confoiTnity with the mles and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be peimitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions ofservice mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view ofpublic iiiterest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadii and another , Union of India and another \\ Janardhan Debanafh & another3, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Koi^rav and others4 ^ndMohd Masood.4hmad\\ State ofU.P. c& Others5). 7. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed —~—~ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit l(2007)83cc212 2 (1974)43cc 3 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4 (1995)33cc 270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150