Sllicjl^ ^, A c^2 '"-g^ 1N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. (S) No. ^f5 2011 PETITIONER / RESPONDENTS Bharvi Mishra, Aged 46 Years S/o Late Shri Ashok Mishra Patwari Circle No.29, Village Chandkhuri,Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. The State Government of Chhattishgarh, ^'^^•te^ ••^•^^'y^'^--"- ,n^b^ml"'.........vr^" Through the Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, District Durg ( C.G.) 3. Shri Sishupal Chandrakar Patwari Circle No. 18 Village Kamta Tahsil Navagarh District Durg (C.G.) (SI.No. 12transfer0rder.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. Petitioner is furnishing particulars of the writ petition as below:- 1 ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4819 of2011 Bharvi Mishra. RESPONDENTS VER8U8 The State Govemment of Clihattisgarh & Othei-s. WRIT PETITION UNDER AR1ICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUnON OF INT)IA SB: Hon'ble Shi-i Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K-Bhaduri, Panel La^yer forthe State/respondent No. 1 and 2. ORDER CORAL) (Passed on 23rd day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to fhe order dated 15.07.2011 (Amiexure P/l) whereby the petitioner working as Patwari at Patvvari Halka No. 29, Chandkliuri, Tahsil Durg, has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 17, Arsi, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, on administrative gi'ounds. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitionei' submits that the petitioner is engaged in Ki'ishi Sangadna work, thus, the transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the instmctions of the State Govemment. Furthen before completion of 2 Vz years at the present place of posting, the impugned transfer order has been passed which is contraiy to the transfer policy of the State Goveiimient. 3. The Krishi Sangadna, Year 2010-11 guidelines (Aimexure P/5), issued by the Director, Land Records are not the statiitory mles, sanctioned under the statutoty provisions. Thus, it can not curtail the power ofthe State Govemment to transfer aii employee. In fhe said guidelmes, it is provided that as far as possible, the employee engaged in Sangadna work should not be disturbed till the work is over. 4. Tlie petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on aiiy other permissible legal gi'ound Le. exercise of mala fide or violation of any statutory mles or regiilations or lack of competence ofthe officer, passingthe impugned order. ^ Amifc 5. Even ot^erw:-t, it is well settled that fhe policies are mere . guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is confeiTed upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Raihwy, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others1). 6. It is also well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is 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 liniited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except m the cases of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in confonnity with the mles aiid regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be peiinitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions ofsen?ice mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view ofpublic interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and anotfier2 , Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & cmother , State ofM.P. and another v. S.SXourav and others4 andA<foM MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others5). 7. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l(2007) 8 SCC 212 2 (1974)43cc 3 3 (2004)43cc 245 4 (1995)33cc 270 5 (2007)83cc 150