"r '•:.- ^ ¥- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. 4633 of2007 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS Nffaj Pratap Singh S/o Shri Jagdish Bahadur Singh, Aged about 36 years, R/o Taran htagar, Shanti Nagar, Dagania, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary Departmsnt of Rsvenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Appearancei Shri P.S. Koshy, counset forthe petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, Govt. Advocate for the State on Advance copy. ORALORDER (13.08.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order of fransfer dated 7.7.2007 whereby the peKtioner, who Is working as Patwari m P.C. No. 114, District Raipur, has been transferred to P.C. No. 9, Tilda, District Raipur on administrative grounds. It is stated ttiat ft is a modified order and the first order is an order dated 29.62007 (Annexure-P^). Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that a perusal of the order would show that it has been passed by the Under Secretary by order and in the name of Governor He submits thert the competent authority in case of the petitioner is Collector, therefore, the order passed by the State Govemment through the Under Secretary is not in accordance with law. He atso argues that Clause 7 of the M.P. (C.G.) Land Record Manual deals with Transfer of Patwaris, which provides that a Patwari may be transferred from one circle to another In the same sub-division by the Sub-Divisional Officer and from one sub- division to another by the Collector. Proposals for transfer should be made through theSuperintendent of Land Records by Bie TahsBdars. His submission is that Uie order passed in violation of this Clause is not in accordance with law. He further argues that the said order is aiso in violation of the transfer policy because the pet'rtioner has not com^eted r^ WJ'.(S) No. 4633 of2007 ¥• 3 years at the present place of posBng and the orcter has been passed in violation ofthesaid poliq^. 1 have heard tearned counsel for the petitioner as also Govt. Advocate and have considered the points in question. So far as question of violation of policy ts concwned, in the matter of Union of India -vs- S.L. Abbas. AIR 1993 SC 2444. it has been held by the Apex Court that the guidelines issued by e Govemment about th9 transfer of Govemment employee do not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable righi It has also been held vide para 7 of the aforesaid judgment that who should be transferred where, is a matter for the approprtate authority to decfde. Unless the order of transfer Is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. However, it has been ftjriher held that while ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, ttie authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Govemment on the subject. Further in the mattsr of State of U.P. and athws Vs. Gobardhan Lal. 2004 AIR SCW 2082, it has been observed by the Apex Court that even administrative guidetines for regulaUng transfer or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportuntty to the officer or seivant concemed to approach their hlgher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying ft& competent authority to transfera particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as along as the official status is not affected advereely 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 guidellnes cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforeeable righte, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vltiated by mala fides or is made in violaUon of any stafaitory provision. As far as provisions of Clause 7 of Land Reconte Manual is concerned, it no where says that any hlgher authority than the authortty mentioned in the said clause shall be proNbited from passing an order of transfer. Even otherwise also, so far as administraUve ordere are concerned, if an order has been passed by the authority higher than the authority concerned, that cannot by itself be nonest in ttie eye of law. vath' ^- W.P.(S)No. 4633 <rf2007 Present is not a case in whlch the chaltenge is made on the ground that the order has been passed by an authority inferior than the authority prescribed under the law. Therefore, on ttiis ground, ttie impugned order cannot be challenged. It is not an instance in which the order is resulting into a civil consequence affecting the right or the status of emptoyee in any manner. Rather, it is a case of simple fransfer tor which the emptoyer is empowered to pass an order in his dlscretion when such an exigency arises. tt has been laid down in many cases that the transfer is an incidence of service and the transfer order can be interfered by a Court of law only when the same is vitlated by malafides or extraneous considerations or is effected in violafion of any statutory rules or the Act. There is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition has no merits and e same • deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Sdf- ; sunilKumar Sinha