cf'\^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (w.p.rs)No........-^A&....../o9) PETITIONER Khorabahara Prasad Sidar S/o. - A .-\^ ^ ^'^.. '..'^^A .^ .,sy ^"y^" 3 ^^<r;;^° ^<^"' -. . 0 ^- ..^ RESPONDENDS Shri Mahetar Sidar , aged about- 47 year, working as Head Master in the Govt Primary School Chachrel, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Raipur (C.G.) YERSUS 1. •" StateofChhattisgarh, Through : Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 'r" 2. ^ The District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, District - Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BJLASPUR PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETITiON (S) N0.5910 OF 2009 Khorabahara Prasad Sidar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ petition under Articie 226 of the ConstitutJon of tndia) Singie Bench : Hon?b!e Shri Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. Present :• Shri S.D. Singh, counsei forthe pefrtioiier. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER10RAL) (Passed on this 20" day of October. 2009) 1. With the consent of iearned Gourssel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard fsnalJv. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, Impugns the legallty and validity of the order dated 30-6-2009 (Annexure - P/1) whereby he has been transferred from Government Primary School, Chataret (Chachrel) to Government Primary Sohool, Paiari, v^thin the District of Raipyr, on administratjve ground. 3. I have heard iearned counsel for the parties, perysed the ptoadings and the documents appended thereto. The main groypd raised by the petitioner is that the petitloner v^as posted at the present ptece of posting on promotion by order dated f-9-2CM)8. Thereafter, the Impugned order has been passed ignoring the fact that there is no Head iVlaster avaiiable in the present pSace of postlng and the students wouid suffer irreparable ioss, if the petitioner Js transferred frcmi present ptace to the newiy transferred piace. 4. No other grounds have been pleaded by the pelitioner e.g. mate flde, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the ruies and regulatjons. This is not a case where any permissible grounds, as stated above, have been raised. 5. Be that as it may, it is weil-settied that transfer is an Inoidenc^ of aervfce and it is for the empioyer to decide asto where a partjcular officer/ employee be posfed, keeping in vjew public Interest as weil as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jyrlsdiction to irterfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order aod psot toing in ^€S^%. .^^fffiOi^ '^ f' ^ Gowri conformity with the rutes and reguiatlons. The petitioner/empioyee cannot be permrtted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of servlce rules, empioyer has ai} the powers to post an empSoyee at a partteular piace in view of public Jnterest and adminislrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamli Nadu and another5, §hl!p! Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Blhsr & anathei2, Unlon of!ndi8 and anotherv. Janardhan Debanath & anotiiei^, State of MP. aneJ another v^ S.S.Koun/and offmrs^ and Mohd MasoodAhsmd y. State ofU.P. & Otherss). 6. in Chief Commesvls! Manager, South Centr^ Railway, Secunde^ibad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others6, the Supreme Court observed as under: "20. il is weil settled that the Central Government or the State Governnient can give administrative instructions to jts sen/ants how to act in ceilaln circumstanGes; but that wiii not make such InstructSons statutory ruies which are justiclable sn certasn circumstances. tn order that such executive instryciions have the force of statutory ruie, §tmust be shown that they have been issued either under the authority . conferred on the Centrai Government or the State Governmeot bv some statute or orsder some provisions of the Constitution provlding therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructlons that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Qovernment by a petltion under Artide 226 of the Constitution of indla." 7. Even otherwise, there is no chalienge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warrantsng interference with the impugned transfer order. 8< For the reasons as aforestated, the petitlon is djsrriissed at the molion stage itself. — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 11974(45SCC3 ' (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4(1995)3.SCC270 5 (200^ 8 SCC 150 6 (200^ 8 SCC 212