J^-.'^S, /er \ SINOLE BENCH IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS)NO. -S^J&S / 2QQ9 PETITIONER <r" ^s^ •^s?' ^•;^ o^^" f f'\-s 7 ^^' Ram Vilas Rai, S/o B. Rai, aged about 49 years, presently working as Lecturer, Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Ramanujganj, District- Sarguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS l." 2. ' ^s^^ ff^ ^^. ,&rs.-^ State ofChhattisgarh Through- the Secretary.» Tribal Welfare Department Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer Ramchandrapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ''•^^ssfsssmms.^^ i 1 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON rSVi No. 5985 of2009 PETmONER : RamVilasRai. RESPONDENT8 VER8US State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTTPETmC^ UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THElCONSTFTyTIGN OF INDIA SB: Hoh'Me ShriSat^h K. AlgiuIiwtt^J. Present: ShriA.N.Pandey^Advocate^thepe^ Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawjer forthe State/respondents. OKDERfORAD (Passed on 06U1 day of November, 2009) t. By this petition, the petitiotier seeks to challenge the legalify and validity of the order dated 23rd September, 2009 (Aimexure P/I) whereby the' representation ofthe petitioner against the traiisfer order dated 30 June, 2009 (Annexure P/2) has been rejected. 2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition beihg W.P.(S)No. 4254/2009 v challenging the transfer order dated 30 June, 2Q09 whereby the petitioner, working as Lecturer was transferred from Boys Higher Secondary School, Ramanujganj, District Surgiya to the office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Rajnandgaon, on administrative ^-ounds. The said petition was dismissed as withdra^?m with liberty to make a representation to the respondent No. 1, raising all his grievances, vide order dated 11th August, 2009 (Annexure P/7). Accordingly; fhe petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities. The said representation was considered by the respondent-authorities and rejected. 3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds tiat fhe aforesaid transfer is contrary to the circulars and guidelines issued in regard to transfer 6f the employees wfao are also Ihe office be^^ the :s^-7" Employees' Union. Further, no person has been posted at the present place ofthe posting ofthe petitioner, where there are 190 students, and ifthe petitioner is transfen'ed, the schooling of the students would be badly affected. 4. From perusal ofthe inipugned order dated 23 Sepfember, 2009 (Aimexure P/l), it appears that the order was passed on fhe representation of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Coiut on 11 August, 2009, in W.P.fS) No. 4254/2009, after considermg all fhe grounds raised herein this petition and the representation. The bfficer considermg the representation has clearly examined the grounds raised by the petitioner that the petitioner was the office bearer ofthe Employees' Union and has held that the petitioner has been posted at the present place ofposting for about 12 years. The office bearer ofthe Union may not be disturbed m normal courses, however, it is not mandatory. In the public interest, the offlce bearer may also be transferred to other place. Thus, the finding ofthe officer is unexceptionable. The order impugned is legal, just, proper and does not warrant airy mterference. 5. It is well-settled that transfer is an mcidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/ employee be posted, keeping m 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 malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in coiiformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee camiot be permittedto remain at oiieplace forever. Under the provisions of sen/rice mles, 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 of Tamil Nadu and another^, Unionoflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anothe^, State qfMP. and another \\ S.SXozin^ and other/ aiid MoM. Masood Ahma^ v. State ofU.P. & Others4). 6. 8o far as contCTtion ofthe petitioner that tlie impugned transfer order is contrary to the transfer policy issued by the State Govemment is concemed, transfer policy is mere giiidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon fhe employee. (See: Ckief Commercial Manager, SouthCentral Raihwy, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam &0thers). 7. 8o far as the number of students and teachers at a particular school are concemed, it is for the State Govei<nment to look into the matter and take appropriate steps so that the teachers are evenly posted in order to further the studies ofthe students in tlie sehool. Thus, on this count, the impugned transfer order camiot be questioned. 8. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting mterference. 9. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Asmt 1 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (2004) 4 SCC 245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 (2007) 8 SCC 150 (2007) 8 SCC 212