(L^~ '\er^^ 6 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. 6^ 6 /2009 PETITIONER '^ v-< RESPONDENTS ,n\^ V..<T / ^w^""" 7->w^''' ...•<^:>" .<y7v yy 1 ^^ Ramnarayan Dubey, S/o Kunjal Prasad Dubey, aged about 47 years, Posted as Patwari at Gram Sonpur, Patwari Halka No. 64, Tehsil Ramanuj Nagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS ^l] State of Chhattisgarh, • Through: Secretary, Revenue & Aapda Prabandhan Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) . 2] Collector . (Land Records), Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (CG) 3] Commissioner, Land Records, Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ^ 4] Tahsildar, Ramanuj Nagar, District Surguja (CG) ^5] Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f^^ \.\f//^ 3^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRiT PETITION fSyNo.65080F 2009 PETITIONER Ramnarayan Dubey Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6509 OF 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ramanancl Ooyat Versus State of Chhattis^rh & Others (Writ Petition under Artjcle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bleShri SatishK.Agnihotri,J. V.WtSSVS.SSStWfftifSi Present:- Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocateforthe petittoners. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. A^vocate Generai for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed onthjs 13thdaypfJuly, 2011) 1; Both the petitipn arises from the common order, hence, bofri the matters are being taken up tqgether and disposed of by the common order. 2. In bofh the petition i.e. W.P.(S) No.6506/2009 & W.P.(S) No.6509/2009, the petitioners have fjled ttie petition, challenging the order dated 3.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, whereby, the service of the petitiqners were transfCT-red from Ramanujnagar to Lundra and Bhaiyathan to Ramanujganj respectively, and order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P-2), whereby, a detailed direction regarding transfer of Patwaries, those who hav@ worked for five yeare in any specific area and the parameters describing the manner and mode of ttie transfer has been briefly stated. 3. The sole contentions of the petittoners are that, both the transfer orders are contrary to the transfer policy dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure P-5). Further, there is no administrative exigency on account of which the transfer orders have been passedand as such tlro same 3( 2 . may be quashed. The petitioners furflier submitted that, the transfer poiicy is related to those patwaris who have com(rfetecl five years in any particulararea. The present petitioners have vrorked onlyfortwo and half years intheir respecthre places ©fposting and as such the transfer orders are bad and no-nest in the eyes of law emd deserves tobequashed. ';j 4. IdenticaS issue came up for consideration before thls Court In fte matter of SavM Darvey v. State of Cf^yaWsgaffj & Anottwr 'm W.P.(S) No.6978 of 2009. This Court after havlng consietered 9ie fival contentions ofthe parties, observed as under: "7. Even othemise, ffw submission of the peffi^oner is con^ary fo te vwll-settted f^Tcif^eofJaw ttTSit if ffwe is any vk>lationaf anyexect^ve fnstrucSons ffiat may FK^ be fhe ground for interfering with the tmnsferorcter. Thus, the aforesaki contenvon ihat the vsnsfer order hQS been pQssed contrary fc> #?e circuiQr/pdiicy issued by ffm Govemment, is r^'ected. The circular/ policy is meve gyideh'nes and ncrf contfolled by statutory piv>viw»ns or under some piDWsions of ffw Garsfftiftton fiirovkling therefor. The effect ffwreof is adwsory in character and therBby no legal right is conferred upon the Bmployee. (See: Chsef Commercial Manager, South Centfsl Railway, Secunderabad & Offisers v. G. Ratnam & O^wrs1). 8. It is welf-seitfed fffat transfer is an incideficeofservice and Hjs forfhe e/?3|pA3>er to di^c^ afito^^^v^^ officer/employ^e be posted, keeping in ^ew pubttcintere^ as wefl as sKfmims^aisve e)dgency. This Cowt has fimited jurisdicffon te inteffere wth the transl^r matter, except in the cases of prove^ mala &fe, noo-coCTpefence of authwity passiry tfje transfer order and not being in conformsty wiffii fhe niles and regulaiions. The petitioner/employe^ cannot be pwmitted to wmaiff atone piace fofever. Under the prw/fSfons of sefwce mles, empteyer has all ^TO pawws to fwst an employee e^ a parffcufer pface in view of public intwest and administtative exigency. (See EP.Royappa v. Staie of Tamil Nadu wd anothef6, Shilpi Bose(Mrs.) andathers v. Stateof^har& anothei3, Unson of india soTd anothwr v. Ja/^t^ar? £}ebanath & arKither4, State of M.P. and anoffier v. S.S.Kourv and others5 and Mohd. Masood Ahmed v. State ofU.P.&Other/}." . I(2007)8SCC2l2 ; 2 1974(4)8cc3 ? : 3(1991)Supp2SCC659 4 (2004) 4SCC 245 5(1S95)3SCC27Q ;: 6 (200^ 8 SCC 150 : AshoK ^ 5) Xhus, issue hi regard to transfer of the petitioners stand concluded hi Saviiri E^rvey (supra). There is no challenge to the jmpugiaed fransfer orders on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting indulgence of this Court under Articte 226 ofthe Constitution of India. 6), For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order astocosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^-