BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S) No. Of2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ...••••"? a.l-:^y> ^%::^y \JM /. ^^^ ^" Sanjay Tiwari, S/o Shri Dilip Tiwari, aged about 41 years, Post Patwari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Revenue Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) r ! 2. Collector, Dhamfari (C.G) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. ..I^......—...„.. —^3""^-.!>.., ''fc j. 'vy/a^- HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER WRTT PETITION (S} No. 4025 of2011 Sanjay Tiwari. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Another. WRIT PETTHON UNT)ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF DSIDIA SB: Bfon'Ue Shri Satish K. Agnihotn, J. Preseiit: Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 26th day ofJuly, 2011) 1. By fhis petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15.7.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, working as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 22, Dhamtari, has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 26, Madwapathra, District Dhamtari. 2. The sole contention of Shri Dewangan, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred is in violation ofthe transfer policy ofthe State as the petitioner has not completed IVz years ofservice atthe present place. 3. On perosal ofthe transfer policy, it is evident that the requirement of posting at a particular place for 2 Vi years is not mandatory but it only provides for posting a person at a particular place for a maximum period of 2 % years and not more than that. Li the case, accordmg to fhe petitioner, the petitioner has been transferred within a period of one year. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other penmssible legal ground i.e. exereise ofmalaflde or violation ofany statutory rules or regulations or lack ofcompetence ofthe officer, passing the impugned order. Aarit 4. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The eflFect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: ChiefCommercialManager, South Central Raibvcy, Secundarabad & Otkers v. G. Ratnam & Otkers^). 5. It is also well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular oiBcer/employee be posted, keeping ia view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter exeept in the cases of proved mala flde, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in canfonnity with the mles 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 ofTamilNadu and another , Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anofher , State ofM.P. and anofher v. S.SXourav cmd others and Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others5). 6. In view ofthe above, the petition is devoid ofmerit and is accordingly disnnssed. Sd/- Sa6shK.Ag"hom Judge l(2007)88cc212 ; (1974)43cc 3 3f2004)4SCC24S 4(1995)3SCC270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150