^^^^: ^v COURT OF THB CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Si No. 3857 of 2010 Petitiouer Respos&desits Shahnawaz Khan, aged aboiit 51 years, S/o Late Shri A.G. Khaa, R/o Babji Park, Rnig Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C,G.), Presently posted as Food Inspector, BUaspur (C.G.) Versi&s State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretar^r, Departoient of Food, Civil SuppUes and Consuiner Protection, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipiir (C.G.) The Coniniissioner, Food Civil Supplies and Consunier Protectlon, Directorate, Raipur(C.G.) The CoUector, Bilaspur (C.G.) Wirit Petitioa uader Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearaiiee: Mr. Raghvendra Pradhaii, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Mr. Paiikaj Shrivastava, Paael Lawyer, for tlie State/respondeuts cn advaiice copy. ORALORDER (28.07.2010) KUBSAR 82F4[HA, J. . Heaixl. Petitiouer--Shaluiawaz Khaii is workiag on tlie post of Food Inspector. He has been ti'ansfen'ed froni Bilaspur to Raipur on admiiiisti'auve grousid by tlie impugned order dated 15th July, 2010, Learned counsel for fhe petitioner subraits tliat tlie petitioner was posted at Bilaspur on 15.1.2009, therefore, after about 1 yeai\& 7 niontlis, lie has been traiisfer froin Bilaspur to Raipur which is vlolatlou of ti-aiisfer policy which says no one would be traasferred prior to completlon of21/2 years at his one place ofpostiag. %, t. y./ "^sy W.P.CS)No. 3857 of 2010 There is no force ia tlie arguraents advaiiced by the learaed counsel for tlie petltioner. The poUcy relatiag to tt'aiisfer does uot confer any riglit to tlie goveniment servaiit to claim issiiao.ee ofwrit oa tlie ground contauied iii fhe poUcy. The poUcy has no statutory effect. The pollcy 1s simply guidelme to fhe aufhorities conceraed. Therefore, the petltiouer lias no legal right to pray issuance of writ on the conteAits of tlie policy. The traiisfer is an iacidence of service, no person workiag on a traiisferable post caii uaake his claim for postiag at a particular place, It 1s for tiie employer to see as to who should be posted at which place, keepiiig iii mmd the better functionmg of the department as also tlie public iiiterest. Unless tlie order of traasfer is shown to be vitiated by mLalafides or extraiieous consideratloiis or it is shown to be passed agaiast aay statutoiy Rule or the Act, normalty such orders are not to be niterfered by a court oflaw, is tlie settled view ofthe Apex Court in inaiiy cases, For tlie foregomg reasons, I do not find aay substance ia fhe writ petltion. The petiUon is liable to be dismissed and is llereby cllsmissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^^