1. . Petitjoner Respondents HiGH COURT 6F CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petitlon (S) No. 3577 of 2008 Nand Kumar Nishad, aged about 33 years, s/o. Samay Lal, Patv^ri at Patvi/ari Clrcie No.5, vjifage Surkhl, Tahsii Bhatapara, Disti:. Raipur C.G. Versys 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary - Revenue department, Dau kaijan Slngh Bhawan, Raipur,CG. 2. Distrtot Coliector, Raipur, CG. 3. Sub DIvisionai ofricer (Revenue), Bhatapara, Dlstt. Ralpur CG. (Writ Petition under ArticSe 226/227 ofthe Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bieMr. Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present Shri B. M. Rao, counse! for the petitioner. Snri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10th day of Jvjy; 2008) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned transfer order dated 30-6-2008 (Annexure P/1), whereby he has been transferred from Patwari Circie No.o, Bhatapara Tahsii, District Raipur to Patwari Circte No.24, Kasdol Tahsii, District Raipur, chatienges the impugned transfer order on the ground that the transfer policy dated 29-5-2008 has not been foilowed in tne transTer order Seoondly, the petitioner has been transferred within a period of ten months, thus, the transfer order be quashedin respect of the petitioners 2) The soie contentlon of iearned counset appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the transfer poiioy. 3) The transfer poiicy cannot be given status of Ruies or Reguiations. Under the provisions of sen/ice rules, emptoyer has aii the powers to post an empioyee at a particuiar place in view of pubiio interest and due to admsnistrative exigency. Trahsfer poiicy is a mere guideiines forthe officers. —2- 4) ln the matter of E»P.Royappa Vs. State ofTairsil Nadu arsd another1, the Supreme Court obsen/ed as uncter. "88 ... with the vast muititudinous activities in which a modern State is engaged, there are bound to be some posts which requjre for adequate dischargs of their fyn.ctions, high.degree of intellect and speoiafized experience. It is aiways a difflcujt problem for the Government to > find suitabie officers for such speclalized posts. There are not ordinariiy many officers who answer the requirements of such specialized posts and tne choice with the Government is very limited and thls choice becomes ail the more difRcuft, because some of these posts, though important and having onerous responsJbiHties, do not carr^ wide executive powers and officers may not, therefore, generaiiy be wiiling to be transferred to those posts. The Government has in the circumstances to make the best possjbie ohotee it can, keeping In view the larger interests of the admjnistration. When, in exercise ofthis choice, the Government transfers an officer from pne piace to another, the officer may fee! unhappy because the new post does not glve him the same amplitucie of powers which he had yvhile holding the oid post But that does ftot make the transfer arbitrary. So long as the transfer is made on aocount of exigencles of admjnistratlon and js not from a higher post to a iower post with discriminator^ preferenos of a junior for tne higner post, it would be valid and not open to attack und6rArtic!e14and16." 5) In the matter of Shiips Bose (Mrs-) asid others Vs. State of Bihar aiici others2, the Supreme Court observed as under "4. in our opinion, the courts shouid not interfere with a transfer order which ?s made In publlo interest and for admEnjstrative reasons untess the transfer orders are made in vioiation of any mandatory statutory rule or cn the ground of- ma!a llde. A government servant hoidEng a transferabte post has no vested right to rernain posted at one piace or the other, he is iiabie to be transferred-from one pjace to other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authorifry' do not' vioiate any of his legai rights. Even if a transfer order Is passed In violation of executive Instructions or onjers, the courts ordlnarily shoukj not interfere with the order instead affeoted party shouid approach t he .higher authorities $n the ctepartment !f the oourts continue to interferenoe with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subcrdinate authorities, there ^ 1974 (4) SCC 3, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 ,^ 3- wili be compiete chaos In the administratton which would not be conducive to pubiic interest." 6) The dictum iaid down by the Supreme Court in the above stated cases have been followed subsequently in other decistons. (See - Unioni of india aiid others. Vs,, Janardhars Debanath and arsother3, State of M.P. aod another Vs< S»S,Kovrav aod others & Mohd., Masood Ahrsiad Vs. State-of U,P. and otherss). 7) it is wel! settied principie of iaw that transfer is an incident of seivice and it is for the employer to decide asto whether a particuiar offioer/employee be posted keeping in view pubtic interest as weii as administrative exigency. This Court has iimited Jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy in the case of proved maia fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being sn conformity with the ruies and reguiations. The petitioner/empioyee cannot be permitted to rema'in at one place, forever, by Court orders. 8) The petitioner is not questioning the validity of the transfer order on any permissibie grounds i.e., masa fide, non-competence of the offlcer or contravention of the statutor/ rutes and regutations. 9) in view of the foregoing, this petition te devoid of merit and deser^es to be dismiss^j. Accordingiy, the petition is dismissed. SatishK.Agnihotri Jydge raju "2004 (4) SCC 245 41995 (3) SCC 270 5 2007(8) SCC 150