swmx^NW ^ C^\-y^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fSI N0. t.9-'^5' /2010 PETITIONER •^,."-; <»>,- <\0..--'" \^^' >^.•:"'''5.0J;"" .••""' •c's'y -•^y' ''1^ RESPONDENTS tslYS ^5^^§ x- Avtar Singh S/o. Harbansh Singh, aged about- 39 years, Working as Sahayak Pashu Chikitsa Kshetra Adhikari, at Pashu Chikitsa Aushadhalaya Ameri, District- Durg (C.G.), R/o. Bhilai, New Khursipar Ward No. 36, Punjabi Colony, Bhilai, < District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through- the Secretary, Krishi Pashupalan Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Pashu Chikitsa Services, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) Deputy Director, Pashu Chikitsa Services, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) i-Tft- ./-'" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTLON_QF INDIA 'vy 5^$? 'gls'^' mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION CS') No. 1270 of2010 PETITIONER : AvtarSingh. VERSUS RESPONDENT : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri C.R.Sahu Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 26th day ofMarch, 2010) ^ 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks cancellation ofhis transfer from Ameri to Anjora and further a direction to the respondent authorities not to disturb the placement of the petitioner i.e. at Ameri, until further orders, on the grounds that the representation of the petitioner has been decided without affording an opportunity of hearing. His performance has been found most satisfactory, therefore the transfer of the petitioner is not in public interest and further, the transfer ofthe petitioner is contrary to the policy. 2. Eariier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5232/2009, challenging the order dated 29.06.2009 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Pashu Aushadhalaya, Ameri, District Durg, to Shashkiya Pashu Prajnan Prakshetra, Anjora, District Durg, on administrative grounds. The said petition was disposed ofvide order dated 14.09.2009 on the ground . that the petitioner wanted to make a representation to the respondent authorities before contestmg the petition on merits. A representation was accordingly made to the respondent authorities on 17.09.2009 which was rejected on 17.02.2010 (Annexure P/4) by the Deputy Secretary to the .Cfe: /f "tO'-;S ftSBIBS '?';.. te. 1 Govemment, Pashudhan Vikas Vibhag, on the ground that the earlier transfer order dated 29.06.2009 was passed on administrative grounds. The petitioner has again preferred this writ petition on fhe groimds, as stated in preceding paras. The petitioner has not made out any case warranting interference with the impugned transfer order dated 29.06.2009 as well as the order dated 17.02.2010 whereby the representation ofthe petitioner has been rejected. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administa-ative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with tlie transfer matter except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passmg the transfer order and not being in conformity with the mles and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service 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 ofTamil Nadu and another , Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another , State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav andothers andMohd. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. & Others4). So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer ordef is contrary to the policy ofthe State Govemment is concemed, the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect fhereof is advisory in charaoter and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the ' 1974(4)SCG3 2 (2004) 4 SCC 245 3 (1S95) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 .^»»':-'-J:.':^ 1/ .Ai^ '^ 7. 8. employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Raihvay, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others). The Supreme Court, in Airports Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others , held that "In a matter of transfer of a govemment employee, scope ofjudicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substifaite their own decision in the matter of transfer". Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned orders on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 9. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 ' (2009) 8 SC.C 337 ~~'-~~- '—'^i^'.:^^-Sw^^-^^-gr^^