aaiu«w, u»ihi. lii-ii-iii i-111Tii,iii't[i*mnfptilf»n(niminii H1GH COURTOF CHHATTISQARH. BiLASPUR PETjTiONER W,PJS},Na.5S62j2§e7 Ramakant Mishra, S/o Shri S.N. Mishra, aged about 54 ysars, Occupafion Service, presently posted Head Constabie, resident of Oppt. Purana Khilona Kharkhana, Sai Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretan/, Department of Home (Poiice), Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director General of Police Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter, Raipur. Assistant Inspector General of Rolice (Admn-!!), Office of Director General of Poltee Chhattisgarh, Poiice Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) WRjT PET1TION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON_OF !ND!A Shri Manindra Shrh/astava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Am't Verma, Counsei for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhvi/aha, Govt. Advocate forthe State on advance copy. {15.10.2007) (Passed in W.P. iS) Nos. S962Q007. 5983/2007, 5968/2007 J967/2Q07, 5972/2007. 599Sffi007 & 6147/20071 .J, Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved v/ith the order of transfer dated 10.09.2007, by which, afier repatriation to the Headquarter of the parent department, a new posting has been given to the petitioner. '""aiB.-'-iinii iiunjniii KI ES; Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that previously the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Transport Department and afier completion of the deputation period, he was repatriated to the parent department and when the petitioner gave his joining at Poiice Headquarters, Raipur, he has been transferred and posted to a District,Which is a naxaiite affected area. He argues that there is a policy of the Government dated 01/04/2006, according to which, the transfer has to be affected. He refers to clause 7 of the Poiicy and submits that the policy is not reasonabie and foilowing that policy, the transfer shouid not have been affected. He further refers to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the matter o{ Kendriva VidvaSalva Sansathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others, 55( Para 4 ofthe aforesaid decision reads as under: "Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by mala fide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (See Amban'i Kanta Ray v. Stete of Orissa, 1995 (Suppt.) 4 SCC (169). Unless the order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in vioiation of operative guideiines, the Court cannot interfere with it (see Union of India v. S.L Abbas, AIR 1893 SC 2444). Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Untess the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of operative any guidelines or ruies the Courts shouid not ordinarily interfere with it. in Union of tndia and Ors. V. Janardan Debanath & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 245, it was obsyved as follows : "No Government sewant or employee of a public undertaking has any legai right to be posted forsver at any one particular piace or piace of his choice since transfer of a particuiar employee appointed to the class or category of transferabie posts from one place to another is not onty an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in pubiic interest and efficiency "<3:M->-«'»~u-l-*siaT"*-l|-i-fT?«»SS«Laa-«=*-n-ri uisiK£; 6^ in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in viotation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appeilate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the empioyer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exiaencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in Nationai Hydroeiectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574" After going through the contents of the Vv'rit Petition as aiso the decision referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that transfer is an incidence of service and nobody working on a transferabie post can claim for his posting at a particutar piace. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by maiafide or is shown to be affected by extraneous consideration or is issued against any statutory Rules or the Act, the same cannot be interfered by a Court of Law. In the present case, learned counsei for the petitioner could not make out a case either of arbitrariness or of maiafide or of extraneous consideration or that the transfer order is passed against any statutory ruies or the Act, rather the Poiicy referred by iearned counsel for the petitioner itself says that after repatriation, a person has to be posted in naxalite affected area, therefore, there does not appea.r to be violation of the policy aiso. So far as reasonabteness ofthe Poiicy is concerned, this Poiicy was framed as back as in the year 2006 and it was weli within the ^- dommion of the makers of the Poiicy to frame it. While exercising the power ofjudicia! review, in such matters, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority. It is the settied principie that the Courts are not to interfere in the matter of policy, which admittediy lies in the dominion of the makers of the same, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers. Uniess the action or the decision of the Government is shown to be unconstitutional or contrary to statutory provisions, or arbitrary or irrationai, or is abuse of power, or discriminatory, the same cannot be interfered by the High Court under writ jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the matter relates to poiice force. What should be the best policy for posting of the police force to meet the need of the peopie at large or to serve the exigency of service is the exclusive dominion of the department itself. The department has aiways a choice in baianclng pros and cons reiating to the policy. Learned counsei for the petitioner couid not make out a case that either the policy was framed by transgressing any specific provision or is arbitrary or maiafide, therefore, the arguments on the ground or reasonabieness of the poiicy, in the facts and cireumstances ofthis case, cannot be entertained. do not find any reason to interfere with the order of transfer. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Shyna