^3 ^ 1- H!OH^^URT_OFCHHATnSGARH,_B|LASPUR S.B.: HOM'BLE SHRi JUSTICE SUNiL KUIVJARSINHA WRST PETiTiON fS) N0. 5205/2010 PETETSONER J.S. Saini, S/o Shri Kashmir Singh, 48 yrs, Sub Engineer, Posted at Sub Division No. 2, North Bastar Div. ?\jo. 1 Jagdalpur, DsstS. Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDESMTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretan/, PubSlc Works Department, Mantraiaya, Raipur- (C.G.) 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Pubiic Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur 3. The Chief Engineer, Pubiic Works Department, Bastar Range, JagdaSpur- (C.G.) WRIT pETITION UNDERARTSCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JNDIA ABeeaiance: Mr. Prafuli N. Bharat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. Tripathi, Panei Lawyer forthe State. ORAL ORDER (10.09.2010) SUNILKUMARSJNHAJ. Heard on admission. Petitioner- J.S. Saini is working on the post of Sub-Engineer. By the impugned order dated 03.09.2010, he has been transferred from Sub Division No.2 of North Bastar Div. No.1 Jagdalpur to Sub Div. No. 1 of North Bastar Div. N0.1 JagdaSpur. Mr. Bharat submits that eariier also an order of transfer of petitioner along with 13 Sub-EngIneers was issued on 30.07.2010 (Annexure-P-2), but the same was canceiied at the instance of Chief- Engineer on the ground that the order was issued in ban period. His submission is that again the impugned order has been issued and the petitioner aiong with other Sub-Engineers has been transferred. He refers to ciause 20 ofthe poiicy dated 26.06.2010 and submits that the order of transfer couid not have been issued after 15th July, 2010. Ciause 20 of the policy does not completely prohibit the transfer aftsr 15th Ju!y, 201 0. A complets reading of Clause 20 would show that the transfer orders can be issued in exigencies even after such provisions in 1 ':^ S8BBS BSHSiSillMBIBSIBilSSIBIISifiW %^^a^i^^j%^^®:^^?^^;;:'^g^^fgi;tif?% WRITPETITLONJSINQ, 5205/20i0 ^ BBII a H the poEscy. Moreover, the policy reiating to transfer does not conter any right to the Government servant to ciaim issuance of writ on the grounds contained in the poiicy. The policy has no statutory effect. The pollcy is simpiy a guideline to the authoritles concern. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to pray fbr issuance of a writ on the contents of the policy. It has not been disputed that the petitioner is working on a transferabie post. By the impugned order, the displacement is from one office to another office in JagdaEpur itself. Transfer is an incidence of semce. No person working cn a transferabie post can make his ciaim for posting at a particular place. it is for the employer to see as to who shouid be posted at which p!ace, keeping in mlnd the better functioning of the department as also the public interest. Uniess the order of transfer is shown to be vitlated by malafides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any stafutory Ruie or the Act< normaiSy such orders are not to be interfered by a Court of iaw, Is the settled vjew of the Apex Court in many cases. For the foregoing reasons, i do not find any substance in the petitlon. The petition is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge