If HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR w.P.(S) No.4ss7 or 2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. The challenge is made to the order of transfer dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure-P/S), by which the petitioner, who is working on the post of Assistant Grade-III in Tahsil OEce Manendragarh, has been transferred from Manendragarh to Khadgaon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer order has been passed in violation of policy dated 13th June, 2007. According to him, The petitioner has not completed 3 years at Manendragarh, therefore, he should not have been transferred from that place. He also argues that according to the clause 3 of the said policy, the peu'tioner should not have been transferred after 15.7.2007. The over all submission of lealned counsel for the petih'oner is that the order is in Violation of the Nandgopal Choubey, aged about 41 years, S/ o. Lats Chandrika Choubey, R/o Indra Nagar, Bada Bazar, Chirmin', Distt. Koriya (C.G.) Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, thmugh Secretaxy, Ministry of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Kon'ya, Baikunthpur (C.G.) 3. Tahsildar, Manendragarh, Koriya (C.G.) Distt. ORAL oRnER (08.08.2007) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Govt. Advocate for the State on advance copy 2 w.P. (S) No. 4587 of 2007 transfer policy. He refers to the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Home Secret U.T. o Ch arh and Anr. Vs. Dars t Si h Grewal 85 Ors. JT 1993 4 S.C. 387 as also Kendriya Vidyalaya Sa_ng¢han Vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and Ors., 2004 (6) SLR 189. In the matter of Union of India- V9 S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444, it has been held by the Apex Court that the guidelines issued by the Government about the transfer of Government employee do not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. It has also been held vide para 7 of the aforesaid judgment that who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malandes or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. However, it has been further held that while ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in‘miud the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Further in the matter of Stnt of (LP. and others vs. Gobardhan Lat, 2004 Am SCW 2082, it has been observed by the Apex Court that even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may ah‘ord an opportunity to the emcer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular ofhcer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the omcial status is not ah'ected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. The Apex Court has further observed that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala tides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. W.P. (S) No. 4587 of2007 Having heald learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the contents of the writ petition and having perused the contents of the policy as also the judgment Ieferred to above, I do not find any ground of malandes or extraneous consideration or a ground of Violaiion of any statutory Rules or Act in the matter of transfer of the petitioner warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. w This petition Eled on the ground of violation of the policy, in which the matter of transfer of government servant, them ‘ cannot be entertained. The same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sdl- \_ i Sunil Kumar Sinha 7 vatti Judge