(^l ^-^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.fS) No. ^^ 13 /2009 PETITIONER l^ V^.ZS?'""..--' fc<y '" A^V ^ ^y^: ^ RESPONDENTS ;t^^ VERSUS 1. Rati Ram Sahu S/o- Kanhiya Ram Sahu, aged abouf 59 years, Occupation Patwari, posted at P. H. No. 15 Salkhan, Tahsil- Navagarh, District- Jajngir-Champa (C.G.) R/o- village- Aaurid, Tahsil- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue &. Calamity Management, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Bilaspur, Division- Bilaspur (C.G.) Collector, (Land Records Branch), QTstrict- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Tahsildar, Tahsil- Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION tS) No. 5919 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Rati Ram Sahu. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF JND1A SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K.Afflriliotn.LJ. Present: Shri D.K.Vishwakarma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shii P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyei' for the State/respondents. ORDERCORAL) (Passed on 20m day ofOctober, 2009) 1. 2. 3. 4. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 30 September, 2009 (Ansiexure P/l), whereby the petitioner. who is posted at as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 15, Salkhan, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 4, P ondidalha, Tahsil Akaltm'a, District Janjgir-Ghampa, on admmistrative grounds, The grounds for challenge to the impugned traiisfer order are that according to the transfer polioy the petitioner cannot be trasisfen'ed as only 10 months are left forhis superamiuatioii. Secondly, the petitioner is not keeping good health and thirdly, the seniority ofthe petitioner would be affected. I have heard leamed counsel for thepetitioner, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is well settled that transfer is an mcidence ofser^ice aiid it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the tramfer matter and except m the cases of proved malaflde- non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not bemg in confoniiity with fhe mles and regulations. Ilie petitioner/employee camiot be permitted to remaiii at one place forever. Under the provisioiis ofser^ice mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view ofpublic iiiterest and admmistrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamil Naclu and another1, Union oflndia and anotherv. Janardhan Debanath & another, State ofM.P. and anather v. S.SXozin^ and others3 aiid Mohd. MasoodAhmadv. StateofU.P. & Others4). So far as contention ofthe petitioner that the impugped transfer order is contrary to the traiisfer policy is concerned, the transfer policy is mere guidelines and siot controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred iipon the employee. In Chief Commercial Manager, South Central RaHway, Secundarabad c& Others \\ 0. Ratnam & Others, the Supreme Court observed as under: "20. It is vvell settled that the Central Govemment or the State Govenimeot can give admimstrative instmctions to its servants how to act in certam circumstances; but that will not make such instmctions statutoty mles which are justiciable in certain circumstances. In order that such executive instmcfions have the force ofstatutoiy mle, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority cosifeiTed on the Central Govenmient or the State Govertmient by some statute or under some provisioiis of the Constitution providmg therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instmctions that does not conter aiiy right on any member ofthe public to ask for a writ against the Goveiiiment by a petitioii under Ailicle 226 of the Constitution ofliidia. " Even otherwise- there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order osi any pennissible iegal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference with the impugiied transfer order. 8. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. Aniit S(V- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ' 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (2004) 4 SCC 245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212