IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. /2011 PETITIONER .^^^ ^y^p-^ ^' ^%-s .-^-"^' T~ ^^>??> ....••-" ^••" RESPONDENTS Shafali Das W/o Shri Shanker Das, aged about 43 years, Occupation ANMfAuxiliary Nurse Midwife) Posted ' at Primary Health Center Boriaya Kala, Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) ' V_ERSUS 1)-' State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Public and Health Services Departraent D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2)-' The Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3) The Chief Medical Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4) Smt Anjana Deonath W/o Goutam, aged about 45 years, ^ Occupation ANM(Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) Posted at Primaiy Health .Center Boriaya Kala, Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -<>\ PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETiTiON (Si N0. 4633 OF 2011 Shafaii Das ;tate of Chhattisaam & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the ConstituUon of India) Slngie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Saiish K- Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Y.C.Sharrna, Advocate for She petjtioner. Shri Arun Sao. Government Advocate for the State. r^ (Passed on this 16 day of August, 2011) Chailenge in this petiiion is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the pstitioner working as Auxiiiary Nurse Midwife (ANM) at Primary'rieaith Center, Boriyakaia, Dharsiwan, has been transferred to Community Health Center, Paiari, on administrative grounds. Shri Sharma, iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has sewed only two years on the present place of posting and there is no complaint, aiiegation or enquiry against the Defiitoner. The Detitioner has been transferred oniv to accommodate the respondent No.4, which is iiiegai and arbitrar/. Shri Sharma, further submits that the petitioner has not compieted 2 % years of servlce and as per the poiicy of the State Government, the empioyees who have completed more than 2 % years at one place, can be transferred. Shri Sharma. next submits that the Detitioner was again transferrsd from the Community Heaith Cenier, Paiari to Sub Health Center, Ausod, Tila'a, on the same date by way of amendment order (Annsxure P-2). Heard learned counsei for the appearing for the parties, perused the pisadings and documents appended thereto. n / The submission of tearned counsei for the petltloner that the petitloner has not compieted 2% vsars is not a'/aiiabie to the petitioner, as fhere is no resiriction either in the pollcy or othero/ise that no transfer to any empioyee wiihout 2 % years at a particuiar piace. !i is a settied position of iaw that the transfer poiicy is mere guidelines, as It is not supported by any stafutory provislon. The criteria of 2 % years is only to examlne the case of an employee, who has compieted 2 Vs years of service at one place of posting, but that does not prohibit transfer of an employee on adminisSraiive exigency, even if, he has not comolete 2 14 vears. So far as next contenfion of the pelitioner ihat the transfer order has been passed to accommodate the respondent No.4 is concerned, there is no merii in the case, as in Diacs of emplovee. who has been transferred, other empioyee is io be posted. Thus, even if, it is according to iearned counsei for the petittoner is accommodation, that cannot be a ground of maia fide for setting aside the transfer order, uniess some cogent and strong reasons are produced to estabiish maia fide. The amendment in the transfer order on the same day does not vitiate the transfer order. !n Chlef Commercial iWanager, South Central Railway, Secundarabed & Others v. G. Ratnam & Othersi, the Supreme Court held as under: "20. 'st is vvell settied that the C&ntral Govemmant or STB State Govemment can give adminish'aSve instructions to its servants how to act in certain drcumsiances; but that wil! noi make such insttvctions statutoiv mies which SIB iusuciable in certain circamstances. In order that such execirtsve InstructiQns have the force of statutory rules, it must be shown that thev have been issued eiiher under the aiithority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government bv soma statute or under some provision of the Constitutian piwviding therefor. ' (2007) 8 SCC 212 -rf"5 sshckf gown ^ Therefore, even if fhafe has iseen any breach of such executlve instructions that does noi confer any right on any member of the pubiic to ask for a writ against the Government by a pstiSon under Artscle 226 of ffje Consatution oflndia". 7. There is no other admissibie legal ground such as lack of competence of the officer, who has passed the transfer order and vioiation of statutory rules and reguiations. 8. it is a trite iaw that transfer/postlng Is an incidence of service. The Court shouid not interfere vnth the transfer/postlng order unless there is mailce, Infringement of statutory rules and reguiations. In the case on 'nand, the petitioner has faiied to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The empioyee may be posted anywhere at the instance of ihe empioyer in pubiic interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posiing of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil ,'Vadu and another, Shitpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Shar & anothei3, State of M.P. andanotharv. S.S.Kouivandothers4, Mohd. Masood Ahmad y. State of U.P. & Oftera5 and Airports Authority of indla v. RajeevRatan Pandey&Others). 9. Appiying the weil-settSed principles of taw to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there Is no merit in tne case. 10. Accordingiv, the writ oetition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SATBH K. ANGNfflOM Judge 21974(4)3cc 3 3 (1991) Supp 2 SC.C 659 *(1995')3SCC270 ° ('2007)8 SCC 150 s (2009) 8 SCC 337