^•^- ts^- ^^^iT^^ E^ ^^^1^1= iiS'SSJii-E: B't.n'i.sl ^^ IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF JUMCATURE AT &ILASPUR {£&] WRTT PETETION ^ 5 WO'—^J'OF 2009 pETrraoNER : Jeenbandhu Baghel S/o. Shr* Ratiram Baghej, aged about 42 Years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Patwari at Halka No. 32 Keshloor. Tahsil - Tokapal, t>istt.-Jagdalpur (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. ,.^^'3f~"'''--'--^^ The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Revenue Department, &.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.6.) 2. The CoKector, Jagdatpur, bistt.- Jagdatpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTICLES 226 OP THB CONSTrmTIQN OF INblA FOR ISSUEANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDEWTS Writ Petition (S) No. 5831 of2009 Jeenbandhu Baghel VBRSUS The State of Chhattisgarh & another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICi.E 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Heard. ORDE R (Oral) (Passed on this 8th day of October, 2009) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 1.10.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Collector, Jagdalpur i.e. Respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner was transferred from Patwari Halka No. 68 Jaibel, Tahsil - Bakwand to Patwari Halka No. 32 Keshloor, Tahsil - Tokapal, District Jagdalpur. Within a short period of three months, by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009, the petitioner has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 18 Gadhiya, Tahsil - Lohandiguda, wrongly mentioning his place of posting. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that by the order dated 30.6.2009 the petitioner was posted at Patwari Halka No.32, Keshrool, Tahsil - Tokapal, temporarily, until further orders. Now, by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009 as niany as 67 Patwaris have been transferred and posted, looking to the administrative exigency and public interest. 4. In support of his submissions, leamed counsel relies on a Circular dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/3), wherein it is stated that a list of all the Patwaris, who are working for the last five years be prepared and sent sp that the steps can be taken for their placement. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended fhereto. On perusal of the circular dated 29.8.2009, I do not find that there is any restriction from transferring a Patwari before completion of five years. 6. 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 the transfer order has been passed contrary to the circular/policy issued by the Government, is rejected. 7. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as adrninistrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of aythority 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, eniployer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in yiew of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another2, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another3, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kouru and others4 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others5). 8. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the circular/policy dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/3) is concerned, the 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 ' 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4 (1995) 3 SCC 270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 conferred upon the employee. (See Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarctbdd. & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others6) 9. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warranting interference with the inipugned transfer order. 10. For the reasons as afore-stated, the petition is dismissed. Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge