INT WRuT PETITION (S) No. QO (4 2/ OF 2009 PETITIONERx HE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SjoKShri K.P. J. Manikpuri, Manikpuri, Aged Working about as Tahsildar, 58 years, Up Tahsil Naya Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Collector, awggmuyy downy“ Dismm Janig” Champa Chhattisgarh " Shri Anupam Tiwari, Tahsitdar, Tahsr’f Bhaisma, District Korba Chhattisgarh INDIA WRIT PETITION FOR ISSUANCE UNDER OF ARTICLE A WRIT 226 OR OF WRITS THE IN CONSTITUTION THE NATURE OF OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI PROHIBITION RESPONDENTS ’/1 3. l DIRECTIONS, , ORDERS OR ORDERS . OR THE LIKE , DIRECTION OR V‘N ”WK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION gSz No. 6042 of2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Ag’gotl‘i. J. Present: Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, Advocate far the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. \\ ORDER ORAL I (Passed on 23’ day of October, 2009) Challenge in this petition is to the transfer order dated 30m June, 2009 (Annexure P/I) whereby the petitioner working as Tahsildar has been transferred from Naya Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti; District Janjgir-Champa to Tahsil Bhaisma, District Korba, and the order dated 21$ Augusg 2009 (Annexure P/I), whereby the representation of the petitioner for cancelling the aforesaid transfer order, has been rej ected. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was posted as Tahsildar at Tahsil Naya Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa. By the impugted transfer order dated 30m June, 2009, the petitioner was transferred to Tahsil Bhaisnia, District Korba. The petitioner filed Ta Writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3259/2009, challenging the aforesaid transfer order. The Writ petition was disposed of Vide order dated 9th July, 2009 (Amexure P/3) with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent‘authorities within a period of 10 days and in tum, the respondent authorities were directed to consider and ‘i .; PETITIONER K.P.Manikpuri. RESPONDENTS VERSUS g? >; decide the representation of the petitioner Within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation on 16m July, 2009 (Annexure P/4). The said representation was considered by the authorities and was rejected vide order dated 21” August, 2009 (Annexure P/l). Shri Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy 2009-10. Shri Wankhede further submits that the impugied transfer order has been passed to accommodate the respondent No. 3, in place of the petitioner. It is further submitted that only one year and eight months are leit for superannuation of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The grounds raised by the petitioner does not come within the purview of malafide exercise ofpower as in transfer matter, it is for the employer to post an employee at a particular place having regard to the public interest and administrative exigeney. Thus, the petitioner has miserably failed to prove malatide in the present case. Even otherwise, the . petitionerrhas not made allegations against any particular officer who has exercised malice against the petitioner. In Shilpi Bose Mrs.) and others}. State of Bihar & another}, the Supreme Court observed as under: .1 m 1 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 .» “4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made interest and for admirnstrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala tide A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders are issued by the competent authority do not Violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer order issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders” Transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto Where a particular otfrcer/ employee be posted, keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved malafide, non—competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamz‘l Nadu and anotherz, Union oflndz‘a and another v. Jqnqrdhan Debanath d2: anotherg, State ofMP. and another v. S.S.Kowv and others4 and Alone}. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Otherf). O- 3 1974 (4) scc 3 (2004) 4 scc 245 ,, , 5 r1995) 3 scc 270 (2007) s scc 150 $7 ‘ 8. So far as ontention ofthe petitioner that the impugned Hansfer order is contrary to the transfer policy 2009-10 is concerned, transfer policy is mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The e§ect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no lega1 right is conferred upon the employee. 9. In Chief Commercia Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad l & Others V. G. Ramam & Othersé, 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 ot make such instructions statutory rules which are justiciable in certain circumstances. In order that such executive instructions ave the force of 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 y member of the public to ask for a writ against the Government b a petition under Article 226 of the y Constitution o India. " 10. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any permissible legal grounds as forestated, warranting interference with the impugned transfer order. 11. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. - 7/:/* Sdl - K, Agnihotri Satish Judge 5 (2007) 8 SCC 21 2 c n h an f a