,< HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTjCE SUNJL KUMARSINH^ WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4848/2010 PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS 2. 3. Ratiram Mirche, S/o Sakh Ram, aged about 42 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middie School Pathri, Block Dharsiwan. District Raipur, C.G. VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretery, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The District Education Officer, Raipur (C.G.) The Biock Education Officer, Dharsiwan.District, Raipur, C.G. WRST PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOMOF !NDiA Appearance: Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. !Vir. R. Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (31.08.2010) SUNILKUIViARSINHAJ. Heard on admission. Petitioner- Ratiram Mirche is working on the post of Upper Division Teacher. By the impugned order dated 14.07.10, he has been transferred from Pathri to Damakheda on administrative grounds. Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, iearned counsei for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was posted at Pathri in the year 2008 and without completion of 2 7z years, he has been transferred from the said piace. He refers to the poiicy ofthe Government in this regard. So far as the policy relating to transfer is concerned, that does not confer any right to the Government servant to claim issuance of writ on the grounds contained in the policy. The policy has no statutory effect. The poticy is simply a guideline to the authorities concern. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to pray for issuance of a writ on the contents of the policy. !t has not been disputed that the petitioner is working on a transferable post. ,5§^r^^^ / ^sf^'\^ 1 <%j \ fe.^J^' WRiT PETITION (S) N0.4948/2010 b Transfer is an incidence of sen/ice. No person working on a transferabie post can make his claim for posting at a particular place. !t is for the employer to see as to who shouid be posted at which place, keeping in mind the better functioning of the department as also the pubEic interest. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Rule or the Act, normally such orders are not to be interfered by a Court of law, is the settled view of the Apex Court in many cases. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge