^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition fS) N0. ^-\\\ /2010 A ^ PETITIONER \ yl?<' ^^s^ ^ ^- ^" ^ yy^ ..."° L^>-< ^^"•'" RESPONDENTS f....../f"/ ^\. .1. Ram Krishna Sharma S/o Late Shri Khedu Prasad Sharma, Aged about 52 years, Constable No. 549 posted at police station Dharsiwa District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS / 1) State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary of Home Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) / 2) The Superintendent of Police District Raipur (C.G.) ,3) Station House Officer, Police Station Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) . 4) Station House Officer, Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1s?P^T'^^W •T^T ^PTT^T, ^Tl1<rS^I^ I^Qli<H^< t^,f.^rNTO-^V|/za|o^200 w ^w^ ^n^i'^T'f^rw ^CT 3^?T ^^icSi ?^ €'^ft^^n^T ^Ht^^li 'RT^ff ^ ^St I^^R '^'^tRlHW^T SB : Hon'Me Shri Manlndra Mohan Shr 08-07-2010 Shri Anil Singh Rajput, counsel for Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel advance copy. Heard. a.J. petitioner. er for the State/respondents on This petition has been filed by ttiej petitioner aggrieved by the transfer order dated 19-06-2010 passed bythe re^pondent No.2 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that by the impugned order oftran^fer, the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer. It is submitted thal petitioner was transferred from Civil Line| vide order dated 28-06-2008, the Thana. Raipur to Thana Dharshwa. Thereafter, on 11-06-2010, an order of 1|ransfer was passed transferring the petitioner from Thana Dharsiwa to Thanaj Simga, and imrTOdiately thereafter. another order oftransfer has been passec) on 19-06-2010, now transferring the petitioner from Police Station Simga to Polijoe Station Devbhog, by modilying the earlier order oftransfer. Submission of tearned counsel for 1|he petitioner is that the transfer order was passed in violation oftransfer guidelin^s dated 22-06-2010, as the |»titioner has not completed 2 & % years and thal| whiie amending the eartier order of transfer, procedure of coordination has not |3een followed. On the other hand. submission of 1 be clear from the impugned order. these of administrafive exigency and not only th< of police officials have been transferred submitted that the petitioner was though fr< order dated 11-06-2010. immediately the' cannot be said to be a frequent transfer. It l^arned State counsel is fhat, as would tfansfers have been made on account petitioner but also the targe number fr^m one place to another. tt is further linsferred to Police Station Simga vide ("eafier. it was modified, therefore, it js also submitted Ihat it is not the case a-^ W,<r^T<pri<?—FS/i47—2/2010—1,00,000. ^s^ ^~f\. /' 4! '^ '^ "Sll^ ? \ ^ ^-, ^—^ ^T^T "^T R^i<^ 'WT 3:?T?^T ^TO? Tumane ^ipiyii^in^ 'S^ '<ll^l<ri4, ^xfl^K?, t^RT^" ^_w.:.f'.&).(^:3lL^oi.?.. a^¥r^w C^if^<<^i) of the petitioner that pursuant to order Police Station Simga, and therefore, ^lated 11-(%-2010. ttie petitioner join^l at |the ground of frequent transter is not available. Learned State counsel furthet" submits thatviolation ofguidelines does not provide any ground for interference |>y this Court in the matter oftransfer. The petitioner was posted at P|3lice Statjon Dharsiwa, vide order dated 28-06-2008. Upon being enquired, l^arned counsel for the petitioner fairly submte that though he was transferredjto Police Station Simga vide order dated 11-06-2010, he did notjoin at Police S|:ation Simga, because the petittoner was not allowed to join there, and in the jmeantime, transfer order was modified. Under these circumstances, the petiponer cannot raise ground of frequent transfer. The petitioner is a member of after two years, it cannot be said to b^ a case of frequent transfer, taking into conskleration the nahire of duty. the pplice official is required to perform. In so far as violation oftransfer guidelines is of executive guidelines relating to trjansfer do not provrcle any ground for interference by this Court in the matter ^f transfer. In this view of the matter, this Qourt does not find any ground to interfere with the order oftransfer. The petjtion te dismissed. police Force and even if he is transferred concerned, it is well settled that violation ^ ^T •^qf^qh^TO^ ^ •fe^t^%K ^^HC^Tl^T Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^rra^r 2? r g^^n^sT, ?^R-^ik —FS/147—2/2010 —1,00,000.