1.":'" Petitioner: HK3H COURT W CHHATTISGARH: Bll.ASPUR WRIT PETtTtON(S) 4198 of 2008 Dr. Nandkumar Mishra Versus Respondents State ofChhattisgarft andanother Post for pronouneement ofjudgment and order on 4- -8" 2008 A ?4 Sd/- Satish K. Agiuhotri Judge ,/ r, LF" r ^w. s^' Petition^r ResRpndents HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISOARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 4199 of 2008 Dr. Nandkumar Midwa, S^o. Shri Narmada Prasad Mishra, Aged abrort 60 yeare, DistrictAyurved CMRcer, Bilaspur, R/o, 27 KhoH, Bilaspur, Tahsi! &District Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattsgarh, through Sesretary, Health and Family Weltars D^atbnent D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Additionat Secretary, Heattti and Famiiy Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotrt, J. Present: Shri VijayKumarMishra, cminseltorthepeBBoner. Smt. Smtta Ghal, Pariel Lawyer for the State. (Passedon this /^ dayofAugust,2008) The present petiUon is filed against the order dated 26-7-2D08 (Annoaire P/6) passed by the State Government rejecting the representation flled by the peUtioner and further the impugned order dated 8-6-2008 (Annexure P/3), whereby the petMoner woridng as District Ayurved Officer, District Bilaq»urwas transferredto District Raipur. 2) Leamed counsef appearing for Uie petitioner submits that the State Govemment in its rejecUon order dated 26-7-2008 (Annexure P/6) has twt considered ttie facts in its proper prospectwe; as the represerrtafion wss rejected on the ground that the toansfer order was passed on adin'Aiistrath/e exigency, thus, there was viotaUon of transfer policy. It was furttar submftted that the impugned transfer order was passed by Mr. D.K. Mathur, Undar f- t Secretary and the representation was considered by Mr. L.P. Dhande, Under Secretary. Learned counsel ftirther submits Uiat there Is no provision under transfer policy to transfer an employee on administradve exi^ncy. Mr. Mishra next contends that there is no mention of approvat by the Department of Minister in tfte transfer policy. Thus, the order is without any basis, mala flde and improper. 3) I have heard leamed counsetappearing for the petitioner, perused th» pteadings and documents appended thereto. 4) It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of sereice and it is (br ttie emptoyer to decide as to where a particular offlcer/eroptoyee be posted keeping in view public interest as welt as administraUve exigency. This Court haslimited jurisdictton to interfere in the tran^er in tt»transter matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non- competence of authority passlng the transfer order and fransfer order not beir^ in conformity with tte rutes and regulations. The petltloner/em|^0yee cannot be permitted to remain at one place, forever, by Court ordere. 5) The transfer policy cannot be gwen statais of rules. Under theprevtsions of service rules, employerhasall Uie powers to post an emptoyee at a particular place in view of public interest and due to administraUve ewgency. Traiwfer poltey is a mere guidetines for the officers. 6) !n the matter of E.P. Royappa Vs. Stete of TanNI Nadu and another 1, the Supi-eme Court observedas under. ^Sfr "88 ... with the vast multitudinous adMties |n whlch a modem State is engaged, there are bound to be some posts which require for adequate dfsGharge of their functions, hgh d^ree of inteltect and speoiari2Bd experience. It is ahways a diffleutt problera fcr the Govemment to find suitabte offlcers for sueh speoialized posts. There are not ordinarily many officere who anawer the requirements of such speciatized posts and the choice with the Government is very timited and this choice beoomes alt ie more difficult, because some of thes® posts, though impoitant ard havirig onet'ous resporfsibilitfes, do not cany wide executiVB powers wid '•1S74(4)SCC3, -•'>- officers may not, therefore, genesally be wtlir^ to be transferred to those poste. The Governmerrt has in the cireumstances to malce ttie best pcssible choice It can, keeping in viewthe larger interests of the administration. When, in exeroise of this choice, the Gwwnment transfere an otRcer from one p)ace to anrther, the officer _ may feel unhappy because the new post cfoes not give him the same amplitude of powers which he had whlte holding theold post. But that does not make thetrander arbitraiy. So long as the transfer is made on account of of admJnistration andis notfrom a tiigher post- to a lower post with discriminatory preference tf a junior for the higher post, it woutd be \alid and not open to attack under Article 14 and 16.' 7) In the matter of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others Vs. State of Bihar and others2, Uie Supreme Court observed as under. "4. In our opinion, the eoyrts shoukt not intetfere with a transfet brder which is made fn publio Interest and for administigtiw Feasons uniess th®transfer ordere are made in violation of any roandatory statutory ruie or on the ground of mala fide. A gevemment senant holding a transfierabfe post has no vested right to remah posteci at one place or the other, he is tiabfe to be traisfen'ed from one ptace to other. Ttansfer orders issued by the competent aulhgrity do not vjolate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in vioiatkin of 6xecyth® instructions or orders, the courls CT'dinarity should not interiere with the order iristead affected party should approach t he higher authorities in the department. ff the courts conthue to interfKence with day-to-day tansfer orders issued by the govemment and its suboRJinate authorities, thepe vwtl be complete chaos in the administration whtch woukt not te codduchre to publie interest." 8) The dictum taid down by the Supreme Court in the above stated cases have been fdtowed subsequentty in other decisions. (See - Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanathand another3, Stete of M.P. and another Vs. S.S. Kourav and others & Mohd. Masootf Ahmad Vs. State of U.f^and otherss). 9) Reiiance placed by learnect counsel appearing for the petitioneir tn the matter of Pannatal s/o. Govind Shinde Vs. Hindustan Pefroleum I- ^ 1991 Suppff)SCC 659 s! 2004(4)8cc 245 4 1995(3)80; 270 5 2007(8)8cc 150 '"sss^^ssss raju •^ Corporation Ltd., is not applicabte to the tacte of ttie present case as thatt matter dealswHh the appointment of retail ouBet deater. 10) The peUtioner has alleged the mala fide, but not proved. The patitioner is not questioning th®validity of the transfer order on any pennisdble grounds i.e., proved mafa fide, non-competence of the officer or contravention of Uie stetutory rutes and regulations. The present petition Is misconcewed as an employee has no statutoiy or legal right to posfing at a particula place, as such there is no infrartion of right, parteuterly when the tanster order was pa^ed on administrative exigency. 11) In view of the foregoing, ttiis peUUon Is devoid of merit and deserves to be dlsmissed. Aecordingly,the petiBon is dismissed ,^"^»t" ^s :.^—/ 1 \ te^ ^w. 2008(1)MPu325