:‘N' ?%%E HIGH SCURT $F JUEICATURE FA? EILASPUR WW ?ETiricmgNa ?/‘3 2< of 2mg; FETiTiON‘E'R 3antos'h Kumaw Shrii’iahare, $011 of 3M Banauram Dhritiahare, aged abaui 3g yearsl reSident of VayaSt‘h Bundeii. Eiock Pithora via Bagbahara‘ District Mahasamund (CG) V5 Rgw’waENTs / 1', Siiate of Chhattisgarh. ihrough the $ecretary, Depaziment of Heai‘i’h 8; Famiiy Weifare, 3&3 Ehawan, Manti'aiaya, Raipur. / 2. The Eistrict Ayurved Officef, Mahasamund {CG}. :3ETiTiéw $F€§ER AR?§C§.E 22$ @F THE C§N$TiTUTi§N éF iNDm PAR?§C§JLA_ _ @F ?H5E PETHION’EQ {S}:- 'l. x Grwiu PETITEONER RESPONDENTS WETITEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COX?STITUTION OF INDIA _P1‘vasen‘{: Shri Dinash R.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. y: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the oroer dated 30m June, 2009 (Annemre P/ 1) whereby the petitioner, working as Aushdhalaya Sahayak at Govemment Ayurved Aushadhalaya, Bundeli, Mahasamund was transfen‘ed to Gerra, Mahasamund, on his own expenses. Shri Tiwari, 1eamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that against the said transfer order, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities stating that the petitioner had never applied for his transfer and as such, the impugted transfer order may be quashed. Instead of cancelling the said order, a corrigendum was issued on ll‘h November, 2009 {Annexure P/2) modifying the basis of transfer which was shown as on own expenses” to “administrative ,, . Shri Tiwari further submits that since the Wife of the petitioner is working as Angan Badi worker at Bundeli, thus, according to the policy ofthe State Government, the husband and the wife should be posted at one place. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a 10W paid employee, he has to look alter his ailing parents and his children are studying at Bundeli. thus the impugned transfar ordar is bad and deserves to be quashed. E have heard‘learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, perused the - pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is weli-settled that'transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer ‘to decide asto where a particular oEicer/employee be posted, Lil HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7132 $2909 Santosh Kumar Dlaritlahare. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & another. SB: Eion’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 04$ day of December, 2009) 2 keepéng in View pubHc intarest as wail as administraiive exigmcy. This Couit has limitad jui’isdiction to inierfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved malafiée, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regmations. The petitioner/smpioyee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the Drovisions of service rules, employer has ail the powers to post an employee at a particuiar place in View of public irtterest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nada and anotherJ, Union offmiz‘a am! another v. Janardhan Debanm‘k & anothera State ofAiP. and another v. S.S.Kourav and otherf and A/[ohd Masood Ahmad v. State oft/.13. & Others"); 6. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the policy ofthe State Government is concerned, the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The eEect thereof is advismy in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Rafi/mm & Gthers5). 7. The Supreme Court, in Airports Authority offndia v. Rajeev Rattan Pandey & Othersé, held that “In a matter of transfer of a government employee, scope ofjudicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or fmai hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer ,1 . 8. Even otherwise: there is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference. i Sd/- For the reasons as aforestated: the petition is dismissed. J? S i ‘- ‘ anshK. Agn‘ghmrg Judge fr- j a, l (1974') 4 scc 3 3 ('2004') 4 soc 245 3 , r1995) 3 sccmo 4 5 (2007) 83sec 150 E (20W scc 212 (2009) 8 scc 337 a