•^. /T> .^•0- ^'^' :^^'i ^ ^-9 %. RFMP^ o^-'^p'' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) N0. ^-^37 /2009 PETITIONER 'Filiamus Kujur S/o M.Kujur, Aged about 57 years, Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources, Sub Division, Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh-(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. ""State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Water Resources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2.y Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) 3. Shri R.S.Patel, Senior Sub Engineer O/o Sub Divisional Officer, Dharamjaigarh Sub Division, Distt. Raigarh-(C.G.) WmT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER I.- JT^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR PET3TIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5937 QP 2Q03T Flljanius Kujur Versvs RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constjtution of India) .Single Bench : HQn?bte!ShriSati8h K. Agnjhcjtri, J. Present :• Shri SuniJ Otwani, counsei for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lav^yer for the State. (Passed.on fhis 1681 day of November, 2009) 1. .With the consent of leamed counseS -appearing for the petitioner,the petjtlon Is heard finaSly. ; 2. The petltjoner, by.ihis petltjon, Impugns the tegallty and valldjiy of the order dated 2-9-2009 (Annexure - P;1) whereby the petitloner has been' transferred from Dharamjajgarh to Jashpur Nagar. 3. ' Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submJts that In the year 2007 the petltioner was postsd at D-haramjaJgarh as Asssstant Engineer and he was aSso glven thecharge of Sub Divisional Offjcer. Thereafter, by Impugned order dated 2-9-2009 the petltioner has been transferred from Dharamjaigarh to Jashpur Nagar. Learned couosel fyrther sybmits that the impugned transfer order Is contraryto the transfer policy, as 'wlthin a period of 2% years the petiticner has been transfeired from the present place of postlng and only to accommodate the respondeot No.3 . the present .transfer crder has been passed. 4. . I have heard iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pieadlngs and the docynients appeoded thereto. The contention of ths petitloner.de8erves to be rajected cn the simple ground that in a cateoa of declsions' It has been heid.that traosfer poSicy is a mere gyldeiine andJtls.not enforceable by way ofwritinexerciseofwritjurisdictionof the High Court. The transfer poilcy does not have colour of siatute. So far as the pc^ting of respondent No.3 In of the petitioner is concerned, the respondent No.3 has not been posted from out slde. He was the senlor most officer Jn the place, as such he was -made In- charge Sub Dlvislonal Officer. The transfer order.has been passed on the basls of adminlstratlve exigency and obtalnlng approva.j from the concerned Mlnister. The petitloner has failed to prove the and lack of competence.of the offlcer passing the Impygned transfer order. Thus, the transfer order is just and proper. 5. Se tnat as It may, It Is. well-settjed that transfer is an inddenoe of ser^ice and It is for the empioyer lo decide asto where a pasw1icular 8. Gowri -^^ offlcer/employee be pQsted, keeping in view public interest asvv'di a? administrative exigency. Thls Court has iimited jurisdiction to interfere wlth the transfer matter, except In the cases of proved mafe flde, non- competence of authoriiy passing the transfer order and not being In conformity with the ryles and .Iregyiations. The petitioner/emptoyee cannot be. permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions- of service rules, empioyer has ail the powerB to post an empioyee at a particuiar place in view of pubiic Interest and admjnistrative exigency. (^QB^E.P.Royappa v. of Tamll Nadu and another, Shllpl Bose (Mfs.) and othe^ v. Staie of B'lhar & anothef2, Unlon oflndia and another v. JaHarcliian'D^bQnath & anothes3, of MR and another v. S.S.Kourv andotiiei^ and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. & Others5). in Chief Commesviai Manager, South Centra! Rsliway, Socunderabad & O^e/s v. G. Ratnam & Otherse, the Supreme Court obsen/ed as under: "20. St is well settled that the Centrsl Govemment or the State Governmen? can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain drcymstances; but that wili not make such instructlons' statutory ruies which are justidabie in csrtain Gircumstances. In order that suoh execytive' jnstructioos have the foroe of statutor^ ruie, it must be shown that they have been issued either under fhe authority conferred cn the Central Government or the State GovernrTient by some'statyte or under some provislons- of the Constjtutjon providing therefor. Therefore, even ifthere has be-en any breach.of such executjve instructions that daes not confer.any: right on aoy member of the pyblic to ask for a writ against the Govemment by . a petition under Articje 226 of the Constitotion of india." Evenothen^ise, there Is no chalienge to the jmpygned transfer order on any other permlssible legal grounds as sforestated, warranting jnterference with the impugned transfer order. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is djsmissed at the motion stage itself. l.;;':.l:l;;:li.ll:l ;.,,.lsd^ t SatishK.Agniliotri 1 Judge ^1y74(4).SCC3 " (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4 (1995)38cc 270 5 (2007)83cc 150 6(2007j8SCC212