HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR W.P.(SlNo.5144/2007 Petitioner S.J.Shrivastav, s/o Late Shri H.N. Lal Stirivastav, aged aBout 54 yearS, Presently wprking as Forest Range Qfficer, Kelhari, Forest Division, Manendrag^rh, District Korea(GG) Respondents Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Forest Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG) The Under Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Fplpst Departmeht, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CC3)^ : • 'Shri N.Ekka, Forest Ranger, p/o the Priheipal Chief Conservator of Forest of ; Forest, Raipur(CG) - ^ ^^^^^ ^ W.P.UNDERARTICLE2260RTHE<XM!lSTTFUTIONOFINDlA 2; 3. •^';:.: •:^. ADDearanee: :.,,'. .;; . . .; ••:. :;1.:..' „'•.": \, • : :1 ®hnR.Diwakar, SrAdvorateNthSHriP.R.R^ thepetjtibner.^.- ••'(:':.i \3.^::':::.';':^/"''':'^ ShriAjay^DwivediiPahelLawyerfSrlh^StateonaclvanGecopy. ORALORDER (10.09.2007) Sunil Kurnar Sinha, J. Heard. •' • :: :..: ' , .::. ; : :•'' 1',-' .: ': - ...:.':•. The petitioner, who is 'pQstecl as a Rorest Ranger in Kelhari Rprest Division, Manendragarh(CG), ha^ been t^ 16.8.2007^Annexure P-T) frpm Kelhari, Manendragarh to the^^ c^ PrinGipalChiefC6nserVatorof1:;er;est,RaipurDivision,DistrictRaiRur(GG) and respondent No.3 has been breught to his pla% from 'Raipur^^to ^KelharyMansndfagarh.-.:,::.;^. :,;. ,'. ':,: :,. • ,••-:•••'•., .., •:,1 Leai-ned Seniorcoj.insel appearing on behalfpfthe petitipnerraises 3 points:;His;fil^sul3missionis^hattheordepoftFansferliasiheenpassed withoutanypropoisalbyAhedepartmerit^Hi&^GpndsubmissiontistK^ there is violation of transfer poliey because neariy 22 —27% peFsons haye been tmrtsferred in the euFrent session,whereas, the poliey says that the percentageoft6tal1:ransferwoyldnotexceedt15%^.yist is that the transfer has been affei^d in the ban penod^ whjeh is WP(s) 5144/2007 y. the policy. He refers to page 17 of fhe paper book, which is the transfer policy oftHeGovernment dated 13th June, 2007. The transfer is an incidence of service, no person working on a transferable post can make his claim for posting at a particular place. It is for the employer to see as to who should be posted at whieh place, keeping inmindthebetterfuhctioning of thedepartmentas also the public interest. ' . ; ^ :• • ;' ^ , 11:.. .1 ; . ;; So far as the proposal of the department and percentage of the total transferred employees and passing the order in ban period are concerned, theseonly relate to the policy, for which, the individualcannot claim a relief as a matterof rigtit on account of deviation from the policy by the government because, the government is always at liberty to make such deviationsinthe publicinterest. In the matter of Unionoflndiavs.S.L.Abbas.AIR 1993 SC 2444, it has beeri held by the Apex Court that the guidelines issued by the Government about the transfer of Goyernment employee do not confer upon the Governmentemployee alegally enforceable right. It has been held vide para 7ofthe aforesaidjudgmentthatwhoshould betransferred where, is a matterfor the appropriate authorityto decide. Unlessthe order oftransferis vitiated by malafides or is made in violation pf an^ statutory provisioris, the Court cannot interferewith it. However, it has been further held that whileordering the transfer, thereis no doubt,the authority must keepin mind the guidelines issued by the Government on thesubjeGt. Further in thematter of .StafeofJ/.P. andofffers vs. Gobardhan Lal. 2004 AIR SCW2082, il has been observed by the Apex Court that even administrative guidelihes for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best my afford an opportunity to the officer orservant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress butcannot have the consequence of depriving or denyihg the eompefent authority to transferaparticularofficer/servanttbanyplaceinpubljcinterestandasis found necessitated by exigeneies of serviee as long as the official status is not affected adversely ahd there js no infrgction of any career prospects such asseniority, seale of pay and secured emoluments. The Apex Court has further observed that the order of transfer made even in transgression ofadrninistrativeguidelinescannota|sobeinterferedwith,astheydonot WP(s) 5144/2007 ^, conferany legallyenforceable rights, unless, as noticed ?ypra, shown to bevitiated by malafidesons made in viblation ofany statutory provision. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiatedby malafides or extraneous Gonsjderations 6r it is shown t6 be passed against any statutory Rule or the Aet, it cannot be interfered by a courtof law.is the settled view oftheApexGourt. In yiew of the settled legal position, 1 do not find any force in Vne arguments advancedbylearhedSeniorCounselforthepetitioner. The petition is notworth admissibn. The same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sdf- Slinil Kumar^SinIia Judge sunlta ^