21-1 ,gW/”>f i Cr” $iN€§LE BENQH IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SI No. a lgg OF 2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDERS OR ORDERS OR THE LIKE PETITIONER — ”f Vipin Raj Walia, Aged 49 years, Slo Late Shri J.S. Walia, Occupation Service, presently posted as Sub- Inspector in District Crime Record Branch (Non—District Executive Force) Raipur Chhattisgarh VERSUS / i RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home (Police), Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh / / 2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur Chhattisgarh / 3. Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4./Superintendent of Police, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (W \\M \¥; HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.7265 OF 2009 PETtTlONER Vipin Raj Walia Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri D.K. Wankhede, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State. ORDER O L (Passed on this 14‘ day of December, 2009} 1. With the consent of learned counsei appearing for the petitioner. the petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the legality and validity of the order dated 7-1 1-2009 (Annexure — P/1) whereby the petitioner RESPONDENTS has been transferred from Raipur to Kanker. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by order dated 4-6-2009 (Annexure — Pl3) the petitioner was promoted from the post of Assistant Sub Inspection to the post at Sub inspector and on the request of the petitioner i.e. on the ground of ill health. the petitioner was posted in Nod-District Executive Force, Raipur. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 7-11-2009 he was. transferred from Raipur to Kanker, which is a naxalite infested area. Shri Whankhede further submits that by raising all of his grievances v and by submitting the medical documents, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 16-11-2009 (Annexure - P/5) before the respondent-authorities and requested for cancellation of his transfer order. By order dated 18-11-2009 (Annexure — PIG) the respondent-authorities modified the transfer order in respect of 7 Sub Inspectors, but the case of the petitioner was not W considered in spite of the fact that the petitioner is suffering from several ailments. Shri Whankhede next submits that without ' obtaining the approval from the Government’the transfer order has been passed, which is contrary to the circular dated 1—4-2006 d fe (Annexure — PI7) an transr policy issued by the State Government. Thus, this petition 4. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, erused p the pleadings and the documents ppended thereto. Th a e contention of the petitioner deserves to be rejected on the simple ground that in a caten of decisions it has bee held that transfer a n policy/circular is a mere guideline and it is not enforceable by way of writ in exercise of writ jurisdtin o the High Court. The transfer ico f policylcircular does no have force of statute. The transfer order t a has been passed on the basis of administrative exigency. The ptitioner has failed to prove the mle tide and lack of competence e a . of the officer assing the impugned transfer order. Thu, he p s t transfer order is just and proper. 5. Be that as it may, it is well-stled that transfer is an incidence f et o service and it is for the employer to decide asto here a particular w officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as weii a as dministrative exigency. Tis Court has limited jurisdictio to a h n interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved male tide non-comptence of uority passing the transfer order , e ath and not being in conformity with the rules and Eegulations‘. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place \ forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the x powers to post an employee at a particuiar place in View of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. Stale of t: . Tamil Nedu and another‘, Shiipi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anctherz, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anothera, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others" and Mohd, Masood Ahmad v. State oi U.P. & Others5).. In Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Retnam &’ Gmerss, the Supreme Court observed as under : “20. it is well settled that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not make such instructions statutory rules which are justiciabie in certain circumstances. in order that such execuh've instructions have the forceof statutory rule, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State GOVernment by some statute or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie Even otherwise, there is no chailenge to the imugned transfer p order on any other permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference with the impugned transfer order. For the reasons as aforestated. the petition is dismissed at the motion stage itseif. Gowri Sd/- l SanshK Agmhotrl‘ ’ Judge , ‘lQ74 (4) SCC S (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 (2004) 4 SCC 245 (1 995) 3 SCC 270 (200’) 8 SCC 150 (2007) 8 SCC 212