\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILA8PUR W.P.iSl So.4680 of 2007 PETITIONSSR IJmakant Pandey Son of Late J.P. Pandey, aged about 50 years, Stenogiaplier Grade-I, Of&ce of the Collector Daatewada, District Daatewada(C.G.) RESPONDESBTS 3. State of Cbhattisgarh, Throiigh : The Secietajy, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raiptu-rc.G,) T)]C Aver Sachiv, Depaj'tanent of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawaii, Raipur The Collector, Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) WSIT PETITIOB VSSER ASTICLE 226 OF THE COSS'nTaTlOS OF CTDIA Apoearance: Shri R.K. Kesbarwaui and Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Advocates for tfae petitioner. Shri Yashwant. Singh, Govt. Advocate for tlie State on advance copy (14.08.2007) ,J. Heari. The challenge is made to the order dat.ed 8.6.2007 (Annexure-P/2), by which the petitioner, who is working on fhe post of Stenographer Grade-I in District Office Dantewada, has beeu transferred to District Oflice Bijapur. Leamed couxisel for tlie petitioner argue ttiat. the petitioaer was posted at Dantewada since 14.11.2005 and without coiiipletion of 3 yeai-s, be has been ti-ansfen-ed, therefi-iiie, tlie order has been passed in violatiou of transfer noliey. They also argiie that firstly, one Neeraj Kumar Kanoje was traDsfen"eri from Rajnandgson to Bijapur but his transfer was cancelled and the petitioner has been ordered to be transfen-ed to Bijapiir, flierefore, W.P.(S)46gQof2007 the order appears to he passed in inalafide exercise ofjurisdiGtion. So far as first ground rRgarding violation of poUcy is concemed, in the matter of Uislon. of Jndaa- Vs- S.L. Alilsas, AI8 1933 SC 3444, jt l-ias been lield hy the Apex Court tliat the giudeSines issned by tlie Goven-mient about the traiisfer of Goveminent einployee do not confer upon the Govei-nraent einployee a legally enforceable right. It. has a1so heen held vide paia 7 of the aforesaid judgment that who shnuM be transfeiTed where, is a niatter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless tiie order of transfer is vitiated by inalafides or is inade in violation of any statiitory provisions, tbe Court cannot. interfere wit.h it. However, it. bas been further held tjiat whfle ordering the transfer, tliere is no doiiht, the ailtiiorily iniist beep UT laind the guidelines issued by the Goveniinent on the siibject. Further in flie inatter of State of U.P. cnd others »s. GoSiesrdhew. Lal, 3004 AJR SCW 30S2, it taas been obsei-v-ed by the Apex Coiirt that. even adDiinistrative guidelines for regulatin^ ti'ansfers or containing transfer policies at liest niay affond an oppoi-tunily to the officer or servant concemed to approach their ni; (her aufiiorities for redress but cannot have the conseqiience of depriving or denying the coinpetent aiithority to transfer a particular officer/ sei'vant to any place in pubUc intei-Rst. and as is found necessiteted by exigencies of~ service as long as the official status is not aflFected adversely and fhere is no infraction of any career prospects such as senioiity, scale of pay and secured eaiohimeuts. Ttae Apex Court has farther obsp.rved that flie order oftransfer niade even in transgi-ession of admuiist.rative guidelines caunot also be intei-fered witii, as they do not confer any legaily enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by inala fides or is luade in violation ofany statiitoiy provision. Admittedly, the tiansfer is an exigency of sei'vice and which eniployee shoiild be transferreri and posted at which place is a inatter to be decided by eniployer. There niay be an instance like the present one, tJiat previously soine otlier person was diiiected to be transferred at a particular p1acc and on account of sonie reason, his tj-ansfer was cance]ted and silbsequently on his place r W^.ifS14680_of2Q07 some other person was directed to go there. T1iis itself does not yield to the factuni of nialafide. (Jniess there js a case jn which uialafide appeai's nn iiecord, or an elenicnt. of malafide is bmught on necord by other substantial material, it can not be inferred sunply by taking a ground jn fhis regard. There appears to be no forcc in the arguments advanced by the leamed counsel for tiie petitioner. The petition bas no inerit, the same is iiable to lie disinissed and is accordingly disniissed at the niotion sfage itself. ^^— Sd/- SunilKumarSmtaa vatti