n^ c\ Ramvilas Ratre, S/o Shri Budhram Ratre, aged about 54 years, Occupation Sen/ice, presentiy posted As Head Constable, R/o Sadar Police Line, Raipur, DisSrict Raipur i'nhhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Home (Poiice), Mantraiaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director Genera! of Poiice Chhattisgarh, Poiice Head Quarter, Ratpur. Assistant Jnsoector Genera! of Police (Admn-ll), Office of Director Genera! of Police Chhattisgarh, Poiice Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) <4 / WRiT PETITtON UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiOMOF iNDiA Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Amit Verma, Counsei for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Govt. Advocate forthe State on advance copy. 367/2007. 5972/2007. 5996/2007 & 6147/2007) iUNIL KUMAR SJNHA^A Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved v/ith the order of transfer d 10.09.2007, by which, after repatriation to the Headquarter of parent department, a new posting has been given to the peiitioner. ^ Learned Senior Counsei appearing for the petitioner argues that previousiy the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Transport Department and after 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 t'nere is a poiicy of the Government dated 01/04/2006, according to which, the transfer has to be affected. He refers to clause 7 of the Policy and submits that the poiicy is not reasonable and Toliowing that policy, the transfer shouid not have been affected. He further refers to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Kendriya Para 4 ofthe aforesaid decision reads as under: "Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts uniess it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by maia nde or infraction of any prescribed norms of principtes governing the transfer (See Asnbani Kanta Ray v. Stefe of Onssa, 1995 (SuppS.) 4 SCC (169). Uniess the order of transfer is visited by maia fide or is made in vioiation of operative guideiines, the Court cannot interfere with it (see Union oflndla v. S.L Abbas. A!R 1993 SC 2444). Who shouid be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Uniess the order of transfer is vitiated by maia fide or is made in violation of operative any guidelines or ruies the Courts shouid not ordinarily interfere with it. In Union of sndia and Ors^ V. Janardan Debanath & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 245, it was observed as follows : "No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any iega! rig'nt to be posted forever at any one particutar place or place of his choice since transfer of a particuiar emptoyee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not onlv an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in pubiic interest and efficiency r " ) in the publte administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outeome of maia fide exereise or stated to be in vioiation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunais normaily cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroeiectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574" After going through the contents of the Writ Petition as atso the decislon referred to by iearned counsei for the petstioner, it is ciear that transfer is an incidence of service and nobody working on a transferabte post can ciaim for his posting at a particuiar place. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafide or is shown to be affected by extraneous consideration or is issued against any statutory Ruies or the Act, the same cannot be interfered by a Court of Law. In the present case, learned counsel 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 statuiory ruies or the Act, rather the Policy referred by learned counse! for the petitioner itself says that after repatriation, a person has to be posted in naxalite affected area, therefore, there does not appear to be vioiation ofthepoiicyaiso. So far as reasonabieness of tiae Policy is concerned, this Policy was framed as back as in the year 2006 and it was well within the dominion of the makers of the Policv to frame it. While exercisin.g the power ofjudiciat review, in such matters, the High Court does not sit as an Appeiiate Authority. it is the settied principie that the Courts are not to interfere in the matter of policy, which admittediy iies in the dominion ofthe makers ofthe same, provided theseauthorities do not transgress their constitutionai iimits or statutory powers. Shyna Uniess the action or the decision of the Government is shown to be unconstitutionai 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 Article 228 of the Constitution of india. In the present case, the matter reiates to police force. What should be the best policy for posting of the poiice force to meet the need of the.peopie at large or to sen/e the exigency of service is the exclusive dominion of the department itself. The department has always a choice in baiancing pros and cons relating to the policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out a case that either the policy was framed by transgressing any specific provision or is arbitrary or malafide, therefore, the arguments on the ground of reasonabieness of the policy, in the facts and circumstances ofthis case, cannot be entertained. 1 do not find any reason to interfere with the order oftransfer. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingiy dismissed. ^l. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge