-J r.P.(S) No. Of 201 fM.L. Nishad, S/o Late Shri Jags Ram Nishad, aged about 52 years, Deputy Treasury OfBcer Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Treasury and Accounts D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^l1 .....-•" \^}-'-:""w...--"" ....•-^"S-?-rf^"';...->-" •^^t'ul'3^?>:";7" 2:< ?1'S---"""""" ^^^r^ District Kanker '(C.G) 2.' Collector North Bastar Kanker 3. H.D Das Deputy Treasury Qfficer Antagarh District Kanker C.G. '? A^ y HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 4020 of2011 PETmONER : M.L.Nishad. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Ue Shri Satish K. Asmhotri. J. Present: Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advoeate with Shri S.P.Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respandent No. 1 aad 2. ORDER(ORAL1 (Passed on 26th day ofJuly, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15.7.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby tfae petitioner, working as Deputy Treasury Qfficer at Bhanupratappur, has been transferred to Antagarh, District Kanker. 2. Shri Agrawal, leamed Senior counsel appearing with Shri Sahu, leamed Advocate for fhe petitioner subniits that the order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/3) was passed transferring Ihe petitioner from District Treasury Qffice, Kanker to Sub Treasury, Bhanupratappur, by the State Govemment. Subsequently, the impugned transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) was passed bythe Collector. Thus, it is bad in law as the appointing authority ofthe petitioner is the State Ctovernment and not the Collector. Shri Agrawal fiirther submits fhat the impugned transfer is in violation ofthe transfer policy ofthe State as fhe petitioner has not completed 2 % years ofservice at the present place. 3. Qn the other hand, Shri Sao, leamed Govemment Advocate appeariag for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 suhmits that the transfer ofthe petitioner is made within Ifae district for which the Collector is fiilly competent. 4, Qn pemsal ofthe impugned order, it is found that it is a transfer within the district for which the Collector is fully competent and justified in placing the petitioner at any place within the district and that too has been done on the approval of tfae Minister-m-charge in accordance n BflB fc. v Amit wifh the transfer policy. The petitioner has not challenged the impugied transfer order on any pennissible legal ground i'.e.exercise ofmalafide or violation ofany statutory rules or regulations. 5. It iswell-settled that transter is an ineidence ofservice and itisforthe employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping ia view public interest as well as admuiistrative exigency. This Court has limitedjurisdiction to iiiteFfere with the trausfer matter except in fhe cases ofproved malafide, non-competenee ofauthority passing the transfer order and not being in confonnity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under fhe provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an eiiiployee at a particular place in view of public interest and adnunistrative exigency. (See KPJioyappa v. State ofTamilNadu and anofhe^, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another^, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and other/ amdAfohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. &0thers4}. 6. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to the policy of the State Govemment is concemed, the policies are mere guideUnes and not controUed by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal ri^it is conferred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Raihvay, Secundarabdd & Olhers v. G. Ratnam & Other/}. 7. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. latishK.Agnihom Judge 1(1974)4SCC3 2 (2004)43cc 245 3(1S95)3SCC270 4(2007)8SCC150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 •D