^•^^ •^ '»t<:...-1 '^•""" •c.^i^i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P, IS) No. S3\^ /2009 PETITIONER ^ Purushottam Dubey, S/o. Shri P.S. Dubey, aged about 54 years, working as Sr. Agriculture Development Officer at Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Thr. Secretary, Department of Agriculture, D.K.8. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) f" 2. G. 8. Dhurve, working as Office Assistant Soil Testing Officer, Bilaspur. 1 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA VK ^GH_CQURT.Pf__CHHATFISGARH:Xi.ASPUR WRIT PET3TJON (S) N0.5912 OF 2009 PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS Pyrushottam Dubey Versus St-ate of Chhattisgarh & Another OA/rit petltlon uoder Articie 225 ofthe ConstitutJon of Indla) Single Bench : Hon'bSe Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- 4. 5. Shri P.S. Koshy, counse! forthe petltioner. Shri IVI.P.S. Bhatla, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 20" day of October, 2009) Vrfith the consenl of learoed- ooynsei appearing for the parties, the petltlon is heard finaiiy. The petitloner, by this pelrllon, impygns the JegaJity and valjdity of the order dated 27-8-2009 (Annexure - P/11) by the Secretary, Department of Agricultyre, In the representatiop 16-7-2009 (Annexure - P/10) by the petltioner. Earlier the petitioner has chaiienged 'the traiisfer order 29-6-2009 (Annexure - P/1), whereby the petjtiorier was transferred froni the office of Senlor Agflcultyre Deveiopment Officer, Bilha, District Biiaspyr to Office of Assistant Soll Testing Officer, Bilaspur, on adrnjnistrative ground, before this Court by fiilng a beln-g W.P. (S) No.3402/2009. The sald writ petitlon was dismissed on 13-7-2009 (Annexure ~ P19) as wifhdrawn with liberty to the to a representailGn before the authorities. Accordingiy, the representatlon was made on 16-7-2009. After consldering the same, ihe Impugned order dated 27-8-2009 was by the Secretary by rejectlng the representallon of the petitiooer. The maln grounds ralsed by 'the petltioner are that firBtly; the iransfer order is contrary to the transfer poiicy of the State Governnieot and; secondly the transfer order has passed to aaconimodale the respondent No.2. Learned counse! for the petitloner sybmlts that the petitloner Is the ojfice bearer of the Karmachari Sangh, therefore, accordlng to the transfer polloy the petltjoner cannot be transferred. I have heard Searned counsei appearing for the partles, perused the pleadlngs and the docyments appended thereto. 8. it 1$ a trite law that transfer pojlcy is a mere gyidellne 11 js not enforceabie by way of VvTit Jn exerclse of writ jyrlsdictfon of ihe High Courl. The Secretary in his order dated 27-8-2009 has all the aspects of the matter and has come to the conclysion that the transfer of the petitioner was done on the of adminj-stratjve exlgency. There is no IjleQaSity or infirmjty in the order/The Js jusl, proper and does not ^varrant any interference of this Coyrt. The petitloner has transferred from to BJIaspur l.e. withio a dlstance ofabout 15 kms. Be that as it may, Jt is weSi-settled that transfer is an Incidence of seroce and jt is for the employer to decjde asto where a particular officer/ empioyee be posted, keeping in view pyblic as, we!! as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdictioo to Interfere with the transfer matier, except in the oi fide, non-competence of authority passing3 the transfer order and nct jn conformity with the ryles and reguSations. The petitloner'/empioyee cannot be ^rmitted to re'maln at ooe place- forever. Un?}er the ^rovlsions of service rules, employer has all the to an employee at a parllcujar place. In vlew of p.ubiic inierest and administralive exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. of TQmli Nadu snd anothers, Shllp! Bose fMre.) and others v. State of Blhsr & anathe^, i/nlon aflndla and anotherv. & anothe^ , of MF. and another v, S.S.Koaw and others and MoAd Massx)cf Ahmad v. StateofU.P. & Othes^5). In Chlef Commercla! Manager, South Centrai Raliway, Secund^-abad & Othes's v. G. Ratnam & Otherss, the Supreme Court oteerved as under: "20. 11 is weii settled ihat the Centrai Government or the State Governrnent can gjve administralive instructions to Its servants how to act in- certasn circumstanoeB; but that wiil not make instructjoos statutor^ ryjes vvhich are justidabie m certaln circumstaoces. in order that such execufive instryctions the force of statutory rule, It myst be shawn 11y74(4)SCC3 2(1S91)Supp2SCC659 s (2004) 4 SCC 245 •;i(1995)3.SCC270 3 (2007) 8 SCC 150 13 (2007) 8 SCC 212 I'l' ^•^^T^^ 1 1 'my'% j '"% 1 "y^K/f' "'^fysfy^ 9. 10. they have beera Issued ejther under the authority conferred cn the Central Govemment or the Government by some stalute or under some prGvistons of the Constjtutson provlding therefor. Therefore, even if the-re has any breach of such executlve instryctions that • does not confer any right cn any member of the pubjic to ask for a writ agalnat the •Government by a petltjon under Artlde 225 oftSie Constliytloo of Indla." Even othen^vise, there is no chaiienge to the impygned transfer order on any other permissibie legai grounds as aforestated, warrantlog interference with the Impygned transfer order. For the reasons as aforestated, the petitioti is disnnfesed at the motion stage itseif. • _„._-— Gowri Sd/- Satish K-Agnihotri Judge 1.........^.•\