‘ \ » 1 \ umnWw $t ' ' . \ EMLHE mmwgwwomk‘gigé cwv£1A£Ea§swaa (.c- 9.x. SWELE' @EMEH IIRIT pETIgég’gm No.» @‘gé /2009‘.' // > Raft i ram Mi rch anyE son c :E cg: 5‘1 1 ate Shri Mangalram Mi rchanyig Lecturar (Pclitical Scien ce) PETITIONER Govt.Hig‘ner $ecgné1ary Seccndary School ¢ Kapan DigttJanj gir-Ghampa (C.G. ) . wgsug RESPONDENT's » 1. ’State of Cnhattj.sgarh Through: mief Secretary wblic Education Direc’uarate Raiwr (C.G.). pmgggga UNDERAggTICLE 226 '01? THE oogsrxggmm OF mung» The petitnbner,,nam@d alibve. most humbly .3116. respect&1l1y begs ’w submit as under :— m Pertimlars of the petitioner : - 4kg stated a'mve in the cause title. » J 2.” The commissioner. public EduCation Directorate (CoGn) Rai'pur (Co G. )3 /,. 3. The GlieaE Executive OEa‘Eicer, District Ft’nchaYat / Janj gir-Q‘xampa (C.G. ) ; 4. The %l1ectcr.District- K Janjgr-mmpa (C.G.)‘." 5. The Distrufct Educat ion Ofii cer,’ Janj gir-Champa (c.G.*).‘ V 6; The Principal; Govemment Higher $eéondary sweat; Kapan Di 51:12.3 anJ' gir-Q'lampa (C.G.). $4 gIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A'r BILASPLR Writ Petition (S! No. 6086 of 2009 Ratiram Mirchanya I PETITIONER VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh 85 another RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) KR CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 5 7 6/State. ORDER Oral Heard. (Passed on this 24th day of \ ~ October, 2009) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 15.9.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the District Education Officer, Janjgir, District — Janjgir Champa. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the most teachers as surplus students. In such a events Where no teacher is available, the Government is expected to look into the matter and post teacher so that the study of the students do not suffer. Learned .V‘. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that by the impugned order as many as 57 teachers have been transferred and posted, looking to the administrative exigency and public interest in accordance with the rationalization scheme. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. This Court in W.P.(S) No. 5866/2009 (Anil Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgrh 85 another) has held that “Submission of the petitioner is contrary to the well-settled principle of law that if there is any Violation of any executive instructions that may not be the ground for interfering with the transfer order. Thus, the aforesaid contention that thevtransfer order has been passed contrary to the circular/policy issued by the Government, is rejected.” It 1s well settled that transfer 1s an 1nc1dence of serv1ce and 1t is for the employer to deCIde asto Where a particular officer/ employee be posted, keeping 1n View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved malafide, non—competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules 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 of Tamil Nadu and anotherl, Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar & anotherQ, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anothera, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others4 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others5). ‘ 1974 (4) scc 3 (1991) Supp 2 scc 659 (2004) 4 scc 245 (1995) 3 scc 270 (2007) 8 scc 150 W So far as contention of the petitionerlhat the impugned transfer order is contrary to the rationalization scheme is concerned, the scheme/circular/policy is mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5) Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds. The petitioner has not proved the malafide, breach of rules 85 regulations and lack of competence of the officer, who has passed the impugned order, for interference of this Court with the impugned transfer order. 10. For the reasons as afore—stated,.the petition is dismissed. /\ Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur 6 (2007) 8 scc 212