‘m $3; ga‘£%‘g's§m§:. S.B. (Service Matter) 1N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIOMS) N0. é [66. /2009. S.L.Joshi, son of Magan Lal Joshi, aged about 45 years, Lecturer (Political Science), Govt. Highex: Secondary School, Dharasheo, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir~Champa, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER: vel'SuS Respondents / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Education Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. . Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh / 3. District Education Ofiicer, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. / 4. Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dharasheo, Block Nawagarh, District danjgir—Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5. R.K.Dahariya, Shikshakarmi Grade-1 (History), Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dharasheo, Block Nawagarh, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MM M“ l t ’?/@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA§H AT BILASPUR N Writ Petition (SI N0. 6166 of 2009 PETITIONER : S. L. Joshi VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh 85 others N WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shri C. Jayant Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 4. O R D E R [Orall (Passed on this 28th day of October, 2009) Heard. 1. The petitioner has flled this petition challenging the order dated 15.9.2009 (Annexure P/2), passed by the District Education Officer, Janjgir, District ~ Janjgir Champa. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Lecturer (Political Science) in Government Higher Secondary School, Dharasheo, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa. By the impugned order dated 15.9.2009, the petitioner has been transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jaijaipur, declaring hirn as surplus at the present place under the rationalization scheme, which provides for declaring junior most teacher as surplus. 3. It is not a case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not one of the juniors, eécept that after transfer of the petitioner’there may not any teacher available for teachingpolitical science subject in the school. The other ground raised by the petitioner is that there is no History subject in the school even then the respondent No.5, who is a Shiksha Karmi Grade—I for teaching the subject History, has been retained and the petitioner has been transferred. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been transferred in Violation of the provisions of the rationalization policy (Annexure P/ 1). ) 4. It is for the Government to look after.the interest of the students. In such an events where no teacher is available, the Government is expected to look into the matter" and post teacher so that the study of the students do not suffer. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that by the impugned order as many as 57 teachers have been I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. This Court in W.P,(S) No. 5866/2009 (Anil Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgrh & another) has held that “Submission of the petitioner is contrary to the well-settled principle of law that if there is any violation of any executive instructions that may not be the ground for interfering with the transfer order. Thus, the aforesaid contention that the transfer order has been passed contrary to the circular/policy issued by the Government, is rejected. " for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/ 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 of Tamil Nadu and another], Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State ofBz'har 85 another2, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath 8a anothera, State of { 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 scc 659 3 (2004) 4 scc 245 (ya MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and V‘others" and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. Sfate of U.P. & Others5). 9. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the rationalization scheme is concerned, the scheme/circular/policy is mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Otherss) 10. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds. The petitioner has not proved the malafide, breach of rules 8r, regulations and lack of competence of the officer, who has passed the impugned order, for interference of this Court with the impugned transfer order. 11. For the reasons as afore—stated, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- V x Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur )4 (1995) 3 scc 27o 5 (2007) 8 scc 150 6 (2007) 8 scc 212