Petitioner Respondent HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Wnt Petition (SrNo. 3527 of 2CX)8 Radhelai C^re, S/o. Shri Naresh Ram Ogre, aged about 38 years, Principai, Govt. H.S. Schoo!, Dondi DIst. Durg (CG). Versys State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Tribal Department D.KS. Bhav/an, Ralpur, Distt. Raipur (CG). . . ' (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Cohstitution of Sndia) SB: Hon'bte iVlr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Presenfc Shri Somkant Venrta, counsej for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8"' day of*?vly, 2008) The petitioner working as Principai, Government Higher Secondary Schooi, Dondi, Dist. Durg, was transferred by the impugned order dated 30-6-2008 (Annexure P/1) aiong with seven other Principais. The petitjoner chalienges the vaiidity of the transfer order dated 30-6-2008 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that the petitioner has been transferred within a period of one year as eariier the petitloner was transferred on 25-5-2007 from Korba to Durg. 2) The sole contention of learned counsei appearlng for the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the transfer poiicy. •H • .. - :' 3) The transfer policy cannot be given status of ruies. Under the provisions of sen/ice rules, empioyer has aii the powers to post an empioyee at a particular ptace in view of pubiic interest and due to administrative exlgenoy. Transfer poticy is a mere guidelines for the officers. 4) In the matter of E»P., Royappa Vs, State of Tamil Nadu asid aiiother 1, the Supreme Court ofc^en/ed as under. :t88 ... with the vast muititudinous activittes jn which a modern State is engaged, there are bound to be. so.me posts which require for aaequate discharge. of - their 'functlons, high degree of inteitect and specialized experience. !t is always a dlfflcult problem for the Govemment totfsnd suitable officers for such speciatized posts. There are not ordinarily many officers who answer the requirements of such speciaiized poste and the choice I1974(4)SCC3, I1 i J»_ — 2.- with the Government is very iimited and thte choice becomes a!l the more difric-uit, because some of these posts, though important and having onerous responsibiiities, do not carry wide executive powers and officers may not, therefore^ generally be wilfing to be transferred to those posts. The Govemment has in the csrcumstances to make the best possibie choice st can, keeplng in view the iarger interests of the, administration. When, in exercise of th!s choice, the Governmenf transfers •anofficer from one pEace to -another, the officer may feel unhappy because the new post does not give him the same ampiitude of powers whioh he had white hoiding the old post. But that does not make the transfer arbitrary. So , iong as the transfer is made on account of exigencies of administration and is not from a higher post to a iower post with cilscrimlnatory preference of a junlor for the higher post, it wou!d be va!id and not open to attaok under Artlcie 14and16." 5) In the matter of Shilpi Bose (IVIrs»)arsd others Vs. State of Bihar asid others2, the Supreme Court observed as under. "4. tn our opinion, the courts shouid not interfere with a transfer order which is made in pub!ic interest and for administratjve reascns uniess the transfer orders are made in vioiation of any mandatory statutory rute or on the ground of mala fide. A govemment servant hoiding a transfera.bte post has no vested right to Temain posted at . one place or the other, he Is iiabte to be transferred from one place to other. Transfer orders Issued by the competent authorlty do not yiotate any of hte tegai rights. Even if a tr-ansfer order is passed In vlojation of executive • • - . instructlons or orders, the courts ordinarily shouid not jnterfere wlth the order instead affectect party shouid approach t he higher-authorities In the department^ .Efthe courts continue to interference with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authcritjes,. there wl!l be oomptete chaos in ,the administratEon. which wou!d not be condudve to publlc interest." 6) The dictum Said down by the Supreme Court in the above stated cases have been foiiowed subsequentiy in other decisions. (See - Union of india and others Vs. ^anardhan Debanath ahd anoth@r3^ ^VM.P. aiid aiiother Vs, S.S»Kourav and others4 & IVIohd. Masood Ahmad Vs»Stote of U.P, aiid others5), 7) It is weii settied principSe of iaw that transfer is an incident of seMce and it is for the empioyer to decide asto whether a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view pubtic interest as weii as administrative exigency. This Court has iimitaj 21991 Supp (2)SCC659 3 2004 (4) SCC345 41995(3)SCC270 5 2.007(8) SCC 150 ^5^^.. -3 - ^ ^ jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy in the case ^ssss^^" of proved ma!a fsde, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the ruies and reguiations. The petitioner/employee cannof be permitted to remain at one piace, forever, by Court orders. 8) Tne petitioner is not questioning the vaiidity of the transfer orcier on any permissible grounds i.e., maia fide, non-competence ofthe officer or contravention ofthe statutory ruies and regulations. 9) in view of the foregoing, this petition is devosd of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petltton is dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge raju