(VP?\w IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR (6.6.) w. P. (s)No. LHZ‘? of 2011 /, 5‘]. KuKLIM L’p L PETITIONER " Jhamman Lal Sonwanimged abouf 58 years, S/o Lafe Shri Rukham Lal Sonwani, posted as Lgb Technician, Communify HeaHh Cen’rre, Simga, Disfr‘ic‘r-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , REsPONDENTS /' :1. Sfa‘re of Chhaf1‘isgar'h Through fhe Secre’rar‘y, HeaHh & Family Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (6.6.). /,. 2. The Direcfor, Healfh Services, Raipur (6.6.) / 3. The Collec‘ror, Raipur, Disfricf-Raipur (6.6.) 4. Chief Medical & Healfh Officer, Raipur' (C.6.) 5. Block Medical Officer, Simga, / Disfricf—Raipur (6.6.) 6. Sadhlal Gendre, Lab Technician, /, Community Healfh Cenfre, Kasdol, Disfricf-Raipur-(C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4725 of 2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 5. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 18 day of August, 201 1) . Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Ambikapur whereby, the petitioner, working as Lab Technician at Community Health Centre, Simga, has been transferred to Community Health Centre, Kasdol, on administrative grounds. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without there being any administrative exigency the impugned transfer order has been passed just to accommodate the respondent No. 6. Shri Agrawal further submits that the wife of the petitioner is also a government servant posted at Ahirwara and if the' impugned transfer order is effected, then the petitioner and his wife will have to live separately. Shri Agrawal next contends that the same is contrary to the transfer policy of the State as it is an outcome of malafide exercise of power. 3. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 5 submits that so far as the grievance of the petitioner that he should be posted to a place near to the posting of his wife, if the petitioner alongwith his wife makes a joint representation raising their grievances, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four weeks. 4. The allegation of accommodation of other employee is principally based on the principle of malafide and in the case on hand, except the self same statement, no document or other connected evidences have PETITIONER : Jhamman Lal Sonwani. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. been produced to establish the allegation of mala fide. It is not sufficient to hold that there was a mala ]?de exercise of power. To establish mala fide, there should be cogent and strong reasons. Thus, the allegation of malafide is unfounded. 5. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground lie. violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order. 6. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: ChiefCommercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Othersl). K 7. It is also 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 administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except. in the cases of proved mala fide, 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 ofTamil Nadu and anotherz, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another3, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourav and others4 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Othersj). 8. In View of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. SATISH K. ANGNmom Judge Sd/- Amit 22. 1 2 (2007) 8 scc 212 3 (1 974) 4 soc 3 4 (2004) 4 scc 245 5 (1 995) 3 scc 27o (2007) 8 soc 15o