single Bengt, 1% CA gab IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P.s N053?” /2009 . S. Raghuvanshi, Aged about 54 years S/o Shri R. S. Raghuvanshi, posted as Tahsildar, Tahsil Bagicha, District Iashpur (C.G.) PETITIONER: VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1._ $Qe of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of General Administration, DKS Bhawah, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Secretary Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, D.K‘.S. a Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh 3.// Collector District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) 4. / Shri Pushpendra Sharma posted as Tahsildar, Tahsil Pamga'rh, r District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ./ ahanadi IG‘land, M 5/ Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, through the / Commissioner, i Mantralaya Pr PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS _ OF " Q , ) e ' co? X I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ,. WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5210 0f2009 WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shrl Mateen Siddique Advocate for the petitioner ‘ Shrl Y S "lhakur Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents 1 to 3 Shrl Prateek Sharma Advocate for the Caveator/respondent No 4 I ’ ORDER ORAL . (Passed 0n 07 day of October, 2009) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the transfer order dated 30“? June, 2009 ‘ (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner has‘ been transferred from Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur to District Bastar, and the order dated 215.‘ August, .2009 QAnnexure P/2), whereby the representation of the petitioner for cancelling his transfer order, has been rejected. , The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was posted at Tahsil Bagicha as Tahsildar. He was appointed as Assistant Registration Officer for preparation of electoral roll for the elections of local bodies. The petitioner Was transferred vide order dated 30th June, 2009' (Annexure P/l) nom Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur to District Bastar The petitioner filed a writ p’etition/ being W.P.(S) No. 3403/2009, challenging the aforesaid transferbrder. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13th July, 2009 (Annexure’P/l l) with a direction .to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities within a period of lO days and in turn, the respondent authorities were ./ > PETITIONER z M S Raghuvanshi. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattlsgarh & Others directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation on 23rd July, 2009‘ The said representation was considered by the authoritie and was rejected Vide order dated 215‘ August, 2009 (Annexure P/2). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy 2009- 10. He further submits that the impugned order is contrary to the circular dated 15‘ July, 2009 (Annexure P/lO) issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, wherein it is provided that any person involved in the work. ofpreparation of voter list shall not be transferred. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. 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 thecircular/policy/issued by the Government, is rej ected. It iswell-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is forthe employer to decide asto where a particular officer/ employee be posted,‘ keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This .1 , 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 conforr‘nity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at r » s 'rh one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View ofpublic interest and administrative exigency. (See E_.P‘R0yappa vi State ofTamil Nadu and another], Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State ofBz'har & anotherz, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another3, State ofMP. and another v S.S.Kourv and others4 and Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofUP. & Othersj). 7. S‘o far as contention of the'petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the transfer policy and circular dated l“ July, 2009 (Annexure P/lO) is concerned, the transfer policy and circular are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. The effect thereof is z advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. 8. In Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others vi G. Ratnam & Others6, the Supreme Court observed as i under: ‘ LL.A p \ a “20. It is well settled that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not make such instructions statutory rules which are . justiciable in certain circumstances. In Order that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rule, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such ' executive instructions that does not confer any right on , )1974(4)scc3 , 2 (1991) Supp 2 scc 659 3 (2004) 4'scc 245 _ ‘ ‘(1995)3.scc 270 5 (2007) 8 scc 150 6 (2007) s-scc 212 , l 7* y embe o e pblc t sk r wit ainst th an mr f th ui o a fo a r ag e ovment a petition der Arcl 26 of the Costitution o ndia. ” ‘ Gern by un tie 2 n f I \ Even otherwis, ther no hallenge to te igned ransfe o on I ay other pisbl leal rounds s aforeted, in prcedi para 6, warrain interference i the pugned trafr order. For the reasons as aforestat, the petiton i ismissed. ed i s d e e is c h mpu tr rder n ermsie g g a sta eng ntg wth im nse