?rx @ MgVLw/o/M @WI% P esmted \H Single Bench IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR RESPONDENTS 2] l 3] 4] State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Health Services, Directorate, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) Chief Medical & Health Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) K Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W W.P (S) NO. ARO % /2o11 x PETITIONER Navrang Lal Rana, S/o. Devar Ram, aged about 44 years, R/o. Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS k. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4208 of 2011 Navrang Lal Rana. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgaIh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON STITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’b1e Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shii Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 015 day of August, 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Armexure P/l) issued by the Chief Medical & Health OEwer, Ambikapur whereby, 1he petitioner, working as Compounder at District Hospital, Ambikapur, has been transferred to Community Health Centre, Ramanujnagar, on administrative grounds. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without there being any administrative exigency the impugied transfer order has been passed and further, the same is contrary to the transfer policy ofthe State and is an outcome of malafide exercise ofpower. . The petitioner has not submitted any document in support of his allegation of mala fide, except the self-same statement, which is not suiiicient to hold that there was a mala fide exercise of power. To establish mala fide, there should be cogent strong reasons. Thus, the allegation of malafide is unfounded. . The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence ofthe officer, passing the impugied order. l" @ 5. Even othewvise, it is well settled that the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: ChiefCommercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ramam & Others!) 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 ohicer/employee be posted, keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu and anotherz, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another}, State ofMP. and another v. S.S.Kourav and others" and Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Othersj). 7. In View ofthe above, the petition is devoid ofmerit and is accordingly dismissed. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit l a (2007) a scc 212 * (1 974) 4 scc 3 3 4 (2004) 4 sec 245 5 (1995) 3 sec 27o (2007) a soc 150