IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ) Noh°.T?.. W.P.(S) Noau./.^...of2011 PETITIONER Versus RESPONDENTS 11 L-1:^ u^.^&^ ..--•"<^^ ^:^"^^ fU Tl ^:y^ ^^ Aa* 1. 2. Ashok Kumar Patel, S/o Late Set Kum.ar Patel aged about 35 years, R/o Near Bus Depot, Ranibhatha Road, Raigarh, Distt- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. State . of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, School Edueation Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Collector, Distt- Raigarh, Ghhattisgarh. ^~ 3. The District Education Officer, Distt- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA^PUR PETITIONER WRTT PETITION fS) No. 4075 of2011 Ashok Kumar Patel. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 8B: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri S.K.Tiwari, Advocate forthe petitioner. Sfari Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate forthe State/ respondents. 4. (Passed on 28th day ofjuly, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) wherebythe petitioner, working as Assistant Grade ffl in the ofEce ofDistrict Education Officer, has been transferred to Govemment Higher Secondary SchooL Jamgaon, District Raigarh, on administrative groimds. Shri Tiwari, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred in violation ofthe transfer policy of the State as the petitioner has not completed 2*/2 years ofservice at fhe present place. He farfher subinits fhat the mother of the petitioner is a diabetic patieiit and needs proper treatment. The petitioner is also a chess player of intemational rating and by his transfer, the petitioner will be deprived offacilities grantedto him. On pemsal ofthe transfer policy, it is evident that the requirement ofposting at a particular place for 2 */2 years is not mandatory but it only provides for posting a person at a particular place for a maximum period of3 % years and not more thau that. In the case, according to the petitioner, Ifae petitioner has been transferred within a period of 8 Vz months. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground s.e. exercise of mala flde or violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, it is well settied that the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect 6. thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conterred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others^). It is also well-settled that Iransfer is an iacidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a partieular of&cer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as admimstrative exigency. This Court has lunited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved malaflde, non-competence ofautfaority 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 ofservice rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view ofpublie interest and admimstrative exigency. (See E.P-Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another , State ofMf. and anofher v. S.S.Kourav and others saaAMohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others'). In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is aceordingly dismissed. __. - -_-.———•-- ' Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri j Judge