© ^ ' \-yQ]^ WTSKSOirStK JGriOff COIWT OF CJSSATTfSGASS JVMCATVKS AT SSLASPVR W.P. / S) Wo. lt,t>% /2010 .A ^ PSTXTlOffKR: ^ ,0 "- A^.'-''....-- ^•?^/ ^s^ -4W ^p'' ^" :- Dr .Sanjay Kumar Raj S/o Shri Heeralal Aged about 31 years Occupation ~ Veterinary Assistant ^irgeon Veterinary Hospital Bakawand Dist- Bastarf C.G.) VSKSUS t KSSPajfOKNTS: J. State of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary , Department of Agriculture (Veterinary) Mantralaya, 0.K.S. Bhawan, RaipurfC.G.) / 2. Joint Director Veterinary Services Dist- Bastar (C.G) r^- WrRJT ySTSTXON UN39KK ARTSCLS 2^6/227 0^ THB CON8T1TVTX0N OJP WWA A^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRITPETniQMS) No^l008Qf2010 PETITIONER : Dr. Sanjay Kumar Raj. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 OfThe Constitution Qflndia SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aeiuhotri, J. Present: Ms.DeepaliPandey,Advocateforthepetiiioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. QRALORJOER (Passed on 10U1 day of March, 2010) 1. By this petition^ fhe petitioner impugns the orderdated 29.06.2009 (Annexure P/l) wherebythe petitioner,workmg as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon at Vetermary Hospital, Bakawand, District Bastar, has been transferred to Veterinary Hospital, Makadi, within the same district on administrative grounds. 2. Ms. Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the pefitioner subniits that as per the policy dated 20.10.2005 (Annexure P/3) of the State Govemment, a person posted in a scheduled Srea who has not completed five years of sendce in the place of posting, should not be transferred and after completiori of five years m the scheduled area^ employee may be transferred to a place ofhis choice. Ihe petitioner has not completed five years at the present place of posting, thus the impugned transfer order is contrary to the policy of the State Govermnent. * 3. I have heard leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4. The contention offhe petitioner fhat fhe petitioner could not have been transferred within five years to any ofher ptace does not merit acceptance. The policy is clear that if a person is posted in scheduled area, he may be kept fbr firve years and thereafter the posting may be given on the choiGe offheemployee^Infhepresentcase,^^^A^ was posted at Veterinary Hospifal, Bakawand, District Bastar on 10.01.2006, thereafter, by the impugned order, the petitioner h^ been posted to other hospital i.e. Veterinary Hospital, Makadi, on^^^A^ ^^ '" £\ 8. 1 1974(4)8cc 3 2(2004)4SCC245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337 adnumstrative ground. The petitioner has not been removed from the scheduled area as both the places are in District Bastar. It is well-settled that traiisfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where aparticular ofBcer/employee be posted, keeping in viewpubUc 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 aufhority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity witih the rules and regulations. The petitioner/emptoyee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under theprovisions of service mles., employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view ofpublic interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v.State ofTamil Nadzi and anothe^, Union cfIndiaandanc^herv.Janar^ & another2, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and others^ axid Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others). 8o far as contention offhe petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the policy ofthe State Govemment is concemed, the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal ri^it is conferred uponthe eniployee. (SQQ: ChiefCommercialManager, South- CentralRaibvesy, Secundarabad & Others v. G.Ratnam & Othens5). The Supreme Court, m Anports Authority cflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Qthers6, held that "In a matter of transfer ofa govemment employee, scope ofjudicial review is limited and fhe High Court would nof interfere with an order Qftransfer ligNly, be it at interim stage or final heai'ing. This is so becausethe courts donot substitute their own decision inthe matter oftrajisfer". Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugiied order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, wan'anting mtetference. For the reasons as aforestated, tiie petition is dismissed. SK^OW s^^