^ o^ IN THE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) x WRnLPETITIpN Np. ^>3j^ /2005 PETITIONER ^ /Awadhram Goyal £^^^e aged about 45 years ;..;^..y ^ S/o Shri D.R. Goyal, R/o Police Line Tumgaon, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. Director General of Police Raipur .^•y.. ^'ML^' /;;^y ^' IFESPONDENTS ' ^o' ...-p ,0^ ^w^l^ ^ •^\.o 11; ^rffr.. (I ^^f \'J^i^! ^ Superintendent of Police !A i^ ^ '/ ^ Mahasamund (C. G.) ^ •:.:.., .:.^%' v' i-^^:'1^ Mahasamund (C.G.) 4. Superintendent of Police Dantewada (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HG—78 W^T'^?f^?^ ~"i^T a^T^Y ^T^ii^ ^IW^II^W^ 's^r ^i<4i<y(4, i?:^FT^, f^roy ^td.ANt.-^^l-S ^F^I ^^ ( ^i^^) ^^w:^^i^i¥i ^Nfepft^ '^TR^ff ^ fe^t 'rf^^R '^3:tfw 3:nt^r 05.08.a005 Shri Prag Kotecha, couiisel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Py^shi, counsel for fhe State/respondente ou advanc^ copy, Heard on admissioiL By way of this writ peti^ion filed under Artfcle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, t^e petitioner has challenged tfae vaUdity of his teansfer oider P/1) by which he has been te&asferrcd firom Mahasamimd to Dantewada. Learaed counsel for ft^ petitioner submite that the aforesaid transfer is against t^e poKcy filed as S.O.P. No. 01 (Anncxure-P/2). He submits they may be traiisferred ioi s counsel also submite fhat fh years and accordmg to fhe pc dated 10.06.2005 (Anncacure- |3iat fhis poMcy mdicates that normalty fhe persons wbo a^e woridag as Q>nstables and Head Constables wiU not be tr^asferred by Head Quartera but jpecial circumstances. Learaed fe petitioner is aged aboirt 45 |ficy of Govenunent fhe pearson above the agc of 40 years sha|l not be transferred in naxafite effected area. He submite fbat Dantevpada is a iiaxalite J XI-HG—78 ^STi^T ^T f^TW .J^H^T^T^^N' 7^[ ^{TqM^, i?^F!^, t^TRTy ^,P.M^. ^S^ WH^T -9lsN!^ s 3?I^T •^S^' C'iSlf^'^T) ^^TWHfirr ^n^i -Z-- eflTected area, fhercJfore, the t^ansfer of fhe petitioner should be canceUcd. I have heaid leanied acid have also perused fhe Aniijexure-P/2, is a gtudeliae £| guidelmes have been prepare^ ^Rfepft^ 'HTR^ff ^ f^Zt ^N^R ^•3ffOT3^T coi|msel for fhe petitioxier at length rec^rds of fhe writ petition, The S.O,P, No. 01^ whi^h has been £8^1 as document >r traiisfer ofclass-II and class- III employees workio^ in f|^e Police department These for fhe purpose ofwelfare of fhe eiaployees and as far as ^ossible fhese guideluies are to be foflowed so fhat fhe ei^ptoyee may live coxnfortably and rendered excellent senjice to fhe employer, Tliese gudtdeliaes arc not of binding 4Sect eifher on fhe employer or on fhe employee so as to ponfer upon emptoyee legalty enforceable right Order of tr^nsfer made wifhout foUowiilig fhe guideUnes caa not be uiterjfered with by Court unless it is vitiated by mala fides or is ^iade in violatron of stetutoty provision. (SStec AJJL 1993 S<^ 2444, Union itf'XiUlta m. SJL. Afcbcis^ As such, fhe aigum^nts advanced by the leareied counsel for petitioner have jno force aad is acconlu^ly rcjected. Moreover, it is submitte^ fhat fhe petitiOTier is worfcmg at Mahasamund siaice fhe ^car 1981 and he has been ~r ' "t XI-HG—78 3?j^['^Tf^^ Y^T3ff^T-^?te v^ ^7 y% ;'</ ^TO^T^MI^ To? '^i'Mid'4, '^€taTR,1^ray ^M,M^S313.. (^3^?) ^CT^R ^St^ ^n^i -34 tcansferred for fhe fiarst tu|ie to District Dantewada on 10.06.2005. The petition has no entertain the petition, ffae tnerite, I axoi not mclined to saiEfc is dismissed, ConsTOtuenffy, M.W.P. dispos^l of. ^N^ft^ ^[R^ff ^ fi^£t'(f^R^R i?3ttW 3T?^T No. 2834 of 2005 stands Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge