^ -^" ^i^ss^ ^^:^'^^^^ 0^^t^'""^..l-^-L-{""" <pt^ detsd -;::A..I-^'-""" /.^. (; .-••••-"""r- c" ^ i^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. ^C^ QF 2008 .7 PETITIONER x RESPONDENTS Larang Ram, Aged afbout 50 years, S/o Shri Ganjhu Ram, Occupation: Service, Working as Inspector of Police, Presently posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Chalgali, Police District - Balrampur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh VE RS U S ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, IDepartment of Home (Police), Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Director General of Police, Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Police 3. Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 4. Superintendent of Police, Police District Balrampur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIQRARL PROHIBITION. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDERS OR ORDERS OR THE LIKE ^a^ A-P-'^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 3568 of2008 PETITIONER : LarangRam Versus RESPONDENTS The State ofC.G. and others. Post for pronouncement ofthe order on 2<9.8.2009. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge •,\' (^^-^,, :^ .^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) N0.3568 of2008 Larang Ram VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of C.G. & others. Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. forthe respondents /State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (Q.o.0%.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the parties the petjtion is heard fjnally. 2. Challenge jn this petition is to the order dated 17.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 by which the petitioner who is working as Station House Officer, Police Station Chaigali, District Balrampur has been transferred to District Jashpur. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present place of posting the petitioner had joined on 18.1.2008 having been reinstated after his suspension. He further submits that the petitioner can not be transferred before completion oftwo years in the present place of posting. He submits that the petitioner has been transferred from one NaxalSite affected area to the other Naxallite affected area though he has already worked in the Naxallite affected area for more than 2 years and therefore the impugned transfer order is contrary to the policy of the Government dated 1.4.2006 (Annexure P-3). He further submits that wife of the petitioner is also a government employee and is working as Assistant Teacher in Government Giris' Higher Secondary School, Ramanujgan] which is 50 kms. away from the present place of posting ofthe petitioner. •i'^ •^. '^ .V 2- 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the scheduled tribe community and in view of the circular dated 12.6.2008 issued by the State Government the petitioner cannot be subjected to frequent transfer on administrative exigency as has been done in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that as the petitioner is a member of scheduled tribe community, he <s being harassed by the authorities subjecting him to frequent transfers that too in the naxallite affected areas. 5. Per contra counsel for the respondents/State submits that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency and he has no right to remain in a particular place of his own choice. He further submits that even as per the policy of the State Government the minimum period prescribed for the Inspectors to serve in the naxallite affected area is five years but it does not prescribe the maximum period with regard to their posting in such areas. Thus it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that as he has already served in the naxallite affectect area for more than 2 years, he can not be posted in such area again. He further submits that the minimum period of posting in the naxallite affected areas according to the policy of the State Government is 5 years and no maxlmum limit for the said purpose has been prescribed in the said policy. He submits that the petitioner can not take the advantage of the policy of the Government dated 1 .4.2006 (Annexure P-3) because they are merely the guidelines having no statutory force. Relevant portion of the policy reads as under: 4. Pi^<9«fe ^ra7f ^ ^raer ^' :- ® 00 ^r ^ra7f ^ <uf^(*friR-yT ^t f^rpr ^' ^cr <:l<tl*ld ^T 'Sffff ^ ^T 05 ^ ^^TcT yHlI^d <^~aT ^S ^ ^Fff ?NT l 44lnlRl ^R liISPT 1q^E®TPRT03 ^ "I^Hcfl f^RTf ^' ^t uTT^ft | c1^MS;xtld 3PT f^ldT ^' 4<l^yi4'r11 XJR f^x||< f^TiTT uTT^^Tr I ..X /'^ ^ -3- 6. As regards the harassment meted out to the petitioner at the hands of the authorities on account of his belonging to scheduled tribe community, it has been argued by the state counsel that in the administrative exigency any employee can be transferred to any place irrespective of the community he belongs to. This apart, no material has been placed by the petitioner to demonstrate that it is only the officers belonging to the scheduled tribe community are being shifted to the naxallite affected areas and not the others. He further submits that in the State of Chhattisgarh out of 16 revenue districts 12 have been declared as naxallite affected areas and therefore the police officers are bound to be transferred to such areas irrespective of caste and creed as is alleged by the petitioner in this case. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is settled law that transfer is an incidence of service and a government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at the place of his own choice. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order; instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department apprising them of their grievances. Which government servant is to be posted where is the exclusive consideration of the employer. The submission of the petitioner that an incumbent can be posted in the naxallite affected area only once, has no force at allbecause the Guidelines of the State Government stipulates the minimum period of posting in a naxallite area as five years. Even thereafter such postjng can be done if administrative exigency so requires. It would not be out of place to mention that no maximum period with respect to their posting in such areas has been stipulated in the said guidelines. If administrative exigency so warrants any government servant can be posted anywhere and such decision taken by the Government is always in consonance with the judicial :-?9S'^'3^ N •i."">'""^jj ..^-'-•-.'-^.-^; •4 "0 pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Further the pefitioner has not been able to demonstrate the fact that as he belongs to the scheduled tribe community, he is being subjected to frequent transfer that too in naxallite affected areas and therefore the order impugned cannot be interfered with only on the basis of vague allegations of mala fides. Of course, the policy of the Government offers a little respite to a government servant that as far as practicable the husband and wife should be posted at one place. Phrase "as far as practicable" has been interpreted by the Apex Court in a series of decisions which means the availability of the post and existence of the departmental office in the area concerned so as to ensure the posting of husband and wife at one place. Notwithstanding such policy of the government, feasibility of accommodating husband and wife at one place is also required to be looked into. If the administrative exigency stands at the forefront, the authority concerned is not under obligation to post husband and wife at one place. Even otherwise, it js merely a guideline not injected with any statutory force does not have any binding effect to cali for interference with the impugned transfer order. 9. Thus, jn view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned transfer order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference with the same. The petition is absoiutely without substance and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. 10. Before parting with the case, this Court hopefully expects the high ranking police officers of the State of Chhattisgarh to inculcate a sense of enthusiasm amongst the police personnei so as to combat the notorious anti social elements active in the State and redeem the innocent State dwelters from the deplorable condition being faced by them, by deploying the police machinery at the places irrespective of the Naxallite ridden ones if administrative exigency indeed so demands. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge