{a in HI H GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR i ‘D.B.: HON’BLE Mr. JUST!CE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & ; HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE RADHESIYAM smA ‘ WRIT APPEAL No.382l2011 PPELLANT Ram Mohan Soni, S/o Late A Baghhu Lal Soni, aged 50 ‘ years, Pa’twari P.c. No.20 ’ Katulbod Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Versus k RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh ._ Through the Secretary. Revenue Department D KS Bhawan Raipur (C G) 2 Collector, Durg (C.G.) “1 WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2‘1! OE THE " CHHATTueeARH Hum-g eoURT (”Pm To DMsIeN BENCH) ACT zoos ; Mmafance > Mr H B Agarwal Senior Advocate with Mr Ajay Shnvastava Counselforthe appeuant I ; Mr AS Kachhwaha Dy Advocate General for the r State/respondents on advance copy l ORALORDER, V (19.02.2011) The following order of the Court wag passed by I: Suml Kumar smha. 4 Heard on admlssron The appellant/petrtroner has flledthis appeal against the ‘ order dated 29‘“ of July 2011 passed in w.P.(S) No.4136/2011 by the Writ Court. By the impugned order, the Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging his order of transfer from Patwari Halka No.20 Katulbod to Patwari Halka No.50 Limtara. ./ ~ WRIT APPEAL No.382l2011 x Mr. H.B.- AgarwaL learned Senior Advocate appearing K an behalf of thegppellant, arguas that the appellant was gngaged in Kn’shi Sangadna, Year 2010-2011, therefore, as a v per the instructions issued in this regard i.e. Annexure P/2 in ' the wr‘fit petition, the appellant would not have been transferred ‘ from Patwari Halka Nol.20 Katulbod. : The Writ Court has held that that Ahnexure P12 is nothing, but the guidelines issued on the basis of poiicy decisions, therefore, the same has no statutory force and as such, it shall not‘oonfer any statutory right to the appellant to claim for his posting at a particular place Le. Patwari Halka r No.20 Katulbod. The‘Writ Court has further held that the appellant has not challenged the impugned transfer order on t any other pennissible legal ground i.e. exercise of malafide or violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack ot « competence ofthe officer passing; the impugnedmrder. The ~ Writ Court has also reiterated that it is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide l as to where a particular officer or employee should {be posted ' keeping in view the administrative exigencies as also public t interest. l have gone through the contents of Annexure P/2‘ the guidelines Issued by the concerned Department The said guidelines have no statutory force and as such, they do not confer upon the govemment servant a ‘ ,leg‘ally enforceable right. ln view of the above, we do npt findt‘any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the,Writ Court. 3 The writ appeal, therefore. is liable to be dismissed and at is hereby dismissed summarily. f . Sdl- \_ §ujiil Kumar Sinha Sdl' V shyna K Judge spiel l Radhe shyam Sham“ Judge