sINGLE BENCH ‘C/o/ix/{DZ\ G) BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR ( CHHATTISGARH ) aiFQU /2011 W.P. {S} No. PETITIONER / L.P. Ogare, S/o Late K.D. Ogare, aged about 52 years, Occupation- Forest Ranger, R/o Tahsil- Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS / 1. State of .Chhattisgarh, RESPONDENTS Through—Its Secretary, Ministry of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan Matralaya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (.C.G.) Additional Secretary Ministry of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur,~ Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Chief Conservation of Forest Administration, Raipur (C.G.) Divisional Forest Officer, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Y. K. Daharia, Ranger Forest, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ‘ Mahasamund, /5. f WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4794 of 2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Jaydeep S. .Yadax}, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. I to 4. ORDER {ORAL} (Passed’on 23‘" day of August, 2011) 1. Chailenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.08.2011 (Anexure W1) whereby the petitioner, working as Forest Ranger, at Basna, Forest Division Mahasamund, to Awapalli, Forest Division Bijapur, on administrative grounds. 2. Shri Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been subjected to Requent transfers. He further submits that the impugned transfer order dated 10.08.20 11 is contrary to the transfer policy of the State Government as the petitioner is a class II officer and there is complete ban on the transfer of class I and class II officers. 3. On the other hand, Shri Sao,'learned counsel appearing for the State submits that by circular dated 08.08.2011, the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 ofthe State has been amended to the extent that in case of urgent matters, in coordination with the Chief Minister, transfer of ciass I and class II officers can be made. 4. Heard learned cOunsel appearing for the parties, perused pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Adniittedly, the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 of the State Government has been amended by memo dated 08.08.2011 giving I relaxation to the above extent. The impugned transfer order has been upasse‘d on 10.08.2011 and that too, by the State Government itself. a PETITIONER : L.P.Ogare. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. W; The allegation of frequent transfer is also misconceived as prior to the impugned transfer order, the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 08.03.20 10, zle. one year before the impugned order. 6. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal gound lie. exercise of maiajfde or violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence ofthe olticer, passing the impugned order. 7. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advismy in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: ChiefCommercial Manager, South Central Railway, Seamdarabad & Others v. G. Ramam & Othersj). 8. It is also well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is (l. for the employer to decide asto where a particular odicer/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 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.R0yappa v. State ofTamz'l Nada and anotherz, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath 0% another3, Stare ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and others" and Moha’. MasoodAhmaa’ v. State ofU.P. & Others5). 9. In View ofthe above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed /, Sd]. t f, Satish K.Agnihmi 1 i Judge t l 2 (2007) 8 soc 212 d (1 974) 4 sec 3 4 (2004) 4 soc 245 5 (1 995) 3 soc 27o (200mg soc 15o