' : f^^j.s0.^---^ i:N3.ri-"-;'^";,-.ft-r a-+>'-£;7...——" ^s^^'i^'^OJ^. de">-'-"l:::" ^ F lcr^?. IN THE HIGH COURT ORCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPEnnONfSlNO.;^-f OF 2010 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS : 1. AbrahaihTirkq?, S/c> Shri Paulose Tirkey Aged about 55 years, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer KunKuri, Distt. Jaspur (C.G.) VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh, Thrbughthe Seci-etary Forest Department DKSBhawan,Raipur(e.G.) \v>t „ ;, S.H/^'si'/"!*j-<5-i 2. FriiK^pai Ghief Ccinseryat&r 6f Forest, Foresf Departrtleht, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Divisional Porest Officer JashpurfC.G.) ^ 4. 'SpeGial.Secretary,^ 1 ^ •.' : GovetTtment 6f Ghhattisgarh D.K.S; Bhawan, Raipur (CG) WRrT SETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226<C>F THE CQNSTrTUTION OF INDJA " The petitioner abpve'naffled, respecffLUly Beg to su^ uhder:- . ' • " : :.^ :.;',';•:'••'• ,.':':';, 1:,^ 1 .' :,'~,;. 1. PARTICUEARS OF'THE ^EnTlONERfS) : As showri in the eause title. • 2. -. PARTICULARS OF^THE RESPONDEronS) As shown inthe causetitle. HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BII-AS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1215 OF 2010 Abraham Tirkev RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisaarh & Others (Writ Petltion under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnfhotri, J. Present:- Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Pane! Lawyer for the State. 4 (Passed on this 22nd day of March, 2010) With the consent of tearned counsel appearing for the parti the petition is heard finaily. By this petition, the petitioner chailenges the legality vaiidity ofthe order dated 4-3-2010(Annexure-P/1) bywhi the petitioner has been transferred from Kunkuri Miairagarh, as Distnct Attached Officer. Learned counset appearing for the petitloner submits petitioRer has been transferred six times withjn a period of six yaars. The impugned transfer order has been issued against the transfer policy and the same has been passed during the ban period. Normaliy, an employee is considered for transfer after completion of three years posting at a particular place. Thus, the petitioner is a have heard learned perused the pleadmgs thereto. The contenti counsel appearing for ihe parties, and the documents appended of the petitioner deserves to be S6i ^s E^S;s N81 ^SsI i£t;^E'^ @ ^^a^a^-=-iss£^a^^^^^^^^^^gj^^^^^^ ^ rejected on the simple ground ihat in a catena of decisions it has been heid that transfer policy/clrcuiar is a mere guideiine and 'rt is not enforceable by way of writ in exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The transfer policy/circular does not have force of a staiute. The transfer order has been passed on the basis of administratlve exigency. 5. Frequent transfers means, an employee is transferred frequently on severa! occasfons. The grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order comes within the ambit of frequent transfers is not we!! estabtished and not sustainable. in law. The petitloner has faiied to prove the mala fide and lack of competence of ihe officer passing the impugned transfer order. Thus, the transfer order is just and proper. 6. Be that as it may, it is a trite lav/ that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order uniess there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in pubtic interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an empioyee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interferencs. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tami! Nadu and anQthsr, Shilpi Bose (M/s.) and others v. State of Bihar & ' 1S74(4)SCC3 !B B n ^n anoths?s, State ofM.P. and another v.S.S.Kourv and othei^, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others4 Chief Commercial Msnager, South Centrai Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others3 and AirpQrts Authonty of india v. RajsevRatan Pandey& Otherse). 7. Applying the weii-settied principles of law to the facts of case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. 8. In the result, the writ peSition is dismissed at the motion siageitseif. SdA SatishK.Agnihotri —;Judge ^^ iail EB BS. wss EW ^a ^;^-^^ E9 • •< B^ Bs BB K!8 BSB ^-sss IBS Kiiiii 2 (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995)33cc 270 4(2007)8SCC150 s (2007)83cc 212 (2009) 8 SCC 337