C; HIGH CGURT OF CHHI§T§§GARH, EILA$PUR W. P {S No.59§3f29¥3 FETiTmNER Gmprakash Yadav, S/o Late Saewak Ram Yadav, aged 47 years, Occupation Service, presently posted As Con-stable, resident of Professor Coioay, behind Kalimai Mandir, Rmg Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, DepaYtment of Home (Poiice), Mantralaya, Dau Kalyen Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhait§sgarh) RESPONDENTS 2. Director Genera! of Police Chham'sgarh, Police Head Quarter, Raipur. 3. Assistant inspector Generai of Poiice {Adina-ii), Office of Directer Generai ef Poiice Chhaiiisgarh, Poiice Head Quarter, Raipur (CG) ‘ RH“ - PETITIONgXiQE§IIRTTCLE2k§QF iNDiA THE CONSTITUTION i ‘OF Counsei ShriManindre for the peii‘timer. $hrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ami: Verma, Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Govt Advocate for the State on advance copy. Gem. QRDER (15.10.2007) (Passed in we. {eggggseemoox eggizeogeassmw , 595M290? 597212£!0? 5Q9S!2m? & $411299? Mi SUNEL KUiviAi-Q SINHa’Lg; Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of transfer dated 10.09.2001 by which, after repatriation to t'ne Headquarter of the parent department, a new posting has been given to the petitioner. ? éé We, Learned Se‘nior Counse§ appearing for the pexiiiorxer argues thai previously the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Tramspmt Department and after compietion of the deputation period, he was repatriated to the parent department and when the petitioner gave ‘nis joining at Poiice Headquarters, Rainur, he has been transferred and posted to a District, which is a naxaiite affected area He atgues that there is a policy of the Government dated 01/04/2606, according to which, the transfer has to be affected. He refers to ciause 7 of the Policy and submits that the policy is not reasonabie and foiiowing that policy, the transfer should not have been affected. He further refers to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Kendriya Vidyai'aiya Sanqathan vs, §amodar Prasad Pandey and others, 20M? AIR SCW 5563 Para 4 of the aforesaid decision reads as under : “Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts untess it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by maia tide or infraction of any prescribed norms ot' principies governing the transfer (See Ambani Kama Ray v. State of Orissa, 19% (Suppij 4 SCC {16$ Uniess the order of transfer is visited by maia ride or is made in vioiation of operative guideiines, the Court cannot interfere with it (see Union of india V, SL. Abbas, AIR 19§3 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 hy mala fide or is made in vioiation of operative any guidelines or rules the Courts shouid not ordinarily interfere with it. ln Union of indie 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 legal right to be posted foreVer at any one particular piece or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the ciass or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not oniy an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in pubiio interest and efficiency ‘\ be Q} in the pubiic wministration. Uniess an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome 0f mala fide exercise or stated to be in vio§ation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such oro‘ers as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision tor that of the empioyerimanagement, as against such enters passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was higniignted by tnis Court in National Hydroeiectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574“ After going through the contents of t’ne Writ Petition as aiso the decision referred to by iearned counsei tor the petitioner, it is ciear that transfer is an incidence of service and no’oociy working on a transferable post can ciaim for his posting at a particuiar place. Uniess the orcier of transfer is vitiated by malatide 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 counsei for the petitioner couid not make out a case either of arbitrariness or of maia’fide or 0t extraneous consideration or that the transfer order is passed against any statutory ruies or t‘ne Act, rather the Poiicy referred by teamed counsei for the petitioner itseif says that after repatriation, a person has to be posted in naxaiite ait‘ected area, therefore, there does not appear to be v-ioiation of the poiicy aiso. So tar as reasonableness of the Poiicy is concerned, this Policy was framed as back as in the year 20(38 and it was well within the dominion of the makers of the Poiicy to frame it. While exercising the power of judiciai review, in such matters, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority, it is the settied principle that the Courts are not to interfere in the matter of poiicy, which admittedly lies in the dominion of the makers ot the same, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutionai limits or statutory powers. £8 Uniess the action cf the decision of the Government is shown to be unconstitutiona! or contrary to statutory provision3, or arbitrary or irrationat, or is abuse of power. or discrimanatory, the same cannot be interfered by the High Court under writ iur'rsdtction under Articte 226 of the Constitution or lndiat in the present case, the matter reiates to poiice force. What should be the best poiicy for posting of the potice force to meet the need of the people at large or to serve the exigenoy of service is the exclusive dominion of the department itseif. The department has always a choice in batanoing pros and cons relating to the policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner oouid not make out a case that either the poticy was framed try transgressing any specit‘io provision or is arbitrary or maiatide, therefore, the arguments on the ground of reasonabteness of the poiicy, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be entertained. l do not find any reason to interfere with the order of transfer. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. r_,(_._( l Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ‘1 Shyna