Lofl c^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUMCATURE AT BILASPUR IC.&: WRITPETCTION (5)N0. ^3; Qp 2011 .f PETCTCONER ^v ^ ^/^ /^/ ^^c^ .•7;'r/o'j<^ '^' .<(. ^^ ..-y' ^- -cS'" .<:; ^^^ Sushil Kumar DanJel S/o. Shri Jijikel Danie), aged about 58 Years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Patwari at Halka No. 25 Madpal, Tahsil - Jdgdalpur , Distt.- Jagdalpur (C.6.) VERSU5 6£SPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.6.) 2. The CoJiector. Jagdalpur. Oistt.- Jagdalpur (C.6.) WRIT PETCTCON UN&ER ARTIO.ES 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUEANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. HIGJH CpURFOf CHH_ATTISGARH_B!LASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4431 OF 2011 PETITIONER Sushil Kumar Daniel RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. QRDER_(QRAL) (Passed on this 8th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure—P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Patwari Halka No. 25 Madpal, Tahsil Jagdalpur to Patwari Halka No.17, Rajoor, Tahsil Tokapal. 3. Contention of the tearned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred in violation of the transfer policy of the State, as the petitioner is going to retire from the service in the month of April 2013 and more than 10% staff has been transferred by the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order is against the transfer policy of the State Government and may be quashed. 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 rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order. 5. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by' statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others1). 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 ' (2007)85cc212 7. 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 conformity with the rulesand 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 ofTamil Nadu and another^, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another^, State of M.P. and anofher v. S.S.Koun/ and others4, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others ). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 21974(4)3cc 3 3 (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 ''(1995)38cc 270 5(2007L8SCC150 6 (2009)83cc337 Li ;i i