l^j;^rfni,s_^ !?ci>.^'°1^.^ S'P^T' i!PSi:Fn' ."s^^_J'i_S ^ =SI'af"S^C'.f*' S^. 3"^ LS ,<% "S3 ?c1f:;S ^. f?5'?^»? ii ?°S M'GH COURT Oc GHHATT«SGARHAT SJLASPUR Writ Appeal No.284 of 201 O APPEI.LAN' -•eiiiioner M.S. Dong'e, son of Late Domani Dongre, aged about 50 years, working as Range Office!"'Forast ' Ranger, Durg, Forest Divislon Dui-g, District Durg, Chhattisgam RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhsttlsaarh, Through Secretary, Forest Department, Dau Kalyan Slngh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Chlef Forest Conservator. RaiDur. /^-i^ ^ .-> ^" 5.—-^" r3«-i i->!iiieitli&ys[fl 3. Divisionsi Forest Offteer, Durg, Distrlct Durg/Chhattisgarh Present: Shri Jitendra Guota, counsel for the appellant Shri G.D. Waswani, Qo'rt. Advocate forthe respondents. Divlsion Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dhirendra iVlishra in'faie.Shri R.N. 3L -M. M Ett (11-8-2010) The appel'ant chai'enged his transfer from the post of Range Officer, Durg, Foresi D'vision to the posi of in-charge F'iying Scot Circie Office, Durg, vide order dated 15-7-2010 on the ground that initiaily his name did not appear in the transfer order dated 15-7-2010 when 69 o'ficers In the State were transferred and his name was inciuded in the second rst Issued on the sarne day at S. No.7 whereby 12 rnore officere were transferred. The above transfer is in flagrant violation of cisuse-S of the transfer policy whjch iays down that maximum 15% of the total -^ rtu^ y strenath can be transferred in a vear and iookina to the cadre, second list exceeds the limit. Another ground taken by the appeHant is that the "f-^..i..ff'^' aooel'ant has suffered freauent transfers within a soan of 4 vears from the year 2006, which cleariy reveals malafide on the part of the respondsnts. 2. Learned Singia Judge dismlssed the petition vyith an observstion that the petitioner has been iocaiiy shifted from Durg, Range Office to ioca! office at Dura. The transfer poSicv issued by She Govemrnent is a guideline to the concemed authorities and !t does not have statutory affect and no writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of !ndia for vioiation of poiicy of the Government. linless the transfer ordei" is shown to be vitiated bv ma'afides or extraneous considerations or it 's shown to be passed against any statutory Rule or the Act, normaliy such orders are not to be interfered with by a Court of 'aw. 3 After hearincs !eamed counsei for the aDDeliant, we are o" the ooin'on that the writ petition hss been dlsm'ssed by taidng into consideration the we!l settled principies of lavi' iaid down by the Supreme Court with respect to scope of interfsrence in the matter of transfer. ^. We do not find any substance in this writ appea!, ths same deserves to be and is accordinci'y dlsmissed in !!mine. -—-— Barvs Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge