P (S'j No.5967/2007 Mohan Thakur, S/o Shri Motiram Thakur, aged 42 years, Occupation Service, presentiy posted As Constable, resident of Krishnapuri- Devpuri, P.S. Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Departrrsent of Home (Folice), Mantraiaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director General of Police ,. Police Head Quarter, Raipur. Assistant Inspector General of Police (Admn-!!), Qffice of Director General of Poiice Chhattjssarh, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF IND.IA Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Amit Verma, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Govt. Advocate forthe State on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (15.10.2007) mW.P.(S}Nos,59S2/2007,_5963/S >/; 5967/2Q07. 5972/2007, 5996/2007 & 6147/20071 NiL Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of transt'er dated 10.09.2007, by which, after repatriation to the Headquarter of the parent department, a new posting has been given to the petitioner. 2- V. . / v <. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that previously the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Transport Department and after compietion of the deputation period, he was repatriated to the parent department and when the petitioner gave his joining at Poiice Headquarters, Raipur, he has been transferred and posted to a District, which is a naxaiite affected area. He argues that there is a poticy of the Government dated 01/04/2006, according to which, the transfer has to be aftected. He refers to clause 7 of the Policy and submits that the poticy is not reasonabie and following that policy, the transfer should not have been affected. He further refers to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Kandriva WdyalalY3_Sans3tfian vs. Damodar Prasad _Pandev_and others, Para 4 ofthe aforesaid decision reads as under: "Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts uniess it is shown to be clearty arbitrary or visited by mala fide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principies governing the transfer (S'ee Ambani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa. 1995 (Suppl.) 4 SCC (169). Uniess the order of transfer is visited by maia fide or is made in vioiation of operative guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it (see Union oflndia v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444). Who shouid be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Uniess'the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of operative any guidelines or ruies the Courts shouid not ordinariiy interfere with it. In Union of india and Ors. V. Janardan Debanath & Anr. 4 SCC 245, it was observed as follows : "No Government s'Brvant or emp!oyee of a public undertaking has any Sega! right to be posted forever at any one particular place or piace of his choice since transfer of a particular empioyee appointed to the ciass or category of transferable posts from one piace to anothsr is not on!y an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency ^ K 3 in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outeome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunats normaiiy cannot interfere withsuch orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appetiate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the empioyer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of adminis'trative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574" After going through the contents of the VVrit Petition as also the decision referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that transfer is an incidence of service and nobody working on a transferable post can ciaim for his posting at a particular place. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafide or is shown to be affected by extraneous consideration or is issued against any statutory Ruiesor the Act, the same cannot be interfered by a Court of Law. In the present case, learned counsei for the petitioner could not make out a case either of arbitrariness or of malafide orof extraneous consideratiori or that the transfer order is passed against any statutory ruies or the Act, rather the Poiicy referred by learned counsel for the petitioner itseff says that after repatriation, a person has to be posted in naxalite affected area, therefore, there does not appear to be violation ofthe poiicyalso. So far as reasonabieness of the Policy is concerned, this Policy was framed as back as in the year 2006 and it was weli within the dominion of the makers of the Pcilicy to frame it. Whiie exercising the power ofjudiciat review, in such matters, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority. !t is the settled principie that the Courts are not to interfere in the matter of pollcy, which admittedly lies in the dominion of the makers of the same, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers. '^. \ y Shyna Unless the action or the decision of the Government is shown to be unconstitutional or contrary to statutory provisions, or arbitrary or irrational, or is abuse of power, or discriminatory, the same cannot be interfered by the High Court under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In th®present case, the matter relates to police force. What should be the best poticy for posting of the police force to meet the need of the people at iarge or to serve the exigency of service is the exclusive dominion of the department itseif. The department has aiways a choice in balancing pros and cons reiating to the policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out a case that either the policy was framed by transgressing any specific provision or is arbitrary or maiafide, therefore, the arguments on the ground of reasonabieness of the policy, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be entertained. 1 do not t'ind any reason to interfere v/ith the order of transfer. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingiy dismissed. Sd/- Ssinil Kumar Sinha Judge