N HIGH {SQURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SI N0. 3417 OF 2008 FETITIONER SVKI Shanna? Slo shri Ram Kumar Sharma, aged about 52 years, presently posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Nagri, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh). Versus Secretary, Forest Department, Dau Kaiyan Singh-Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Shri MK. Ali, Sub Divisional Forest Ofiicer, Narayanpur, Distt. Narayanpur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun $ao, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Kashif $hakeel, counsel for the respondent No.2 RESPbNDENTS 1. State of ChhattiSgarh, through the Under . JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Passed on this 2 ligay of August, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 283-2008 (Annexure—PH) whereby the petitioner working as Sub Divisional Officer has been transferred from Nagri, Dhamtari Forest Division to with the Attached Officer, Sub Divisionai Officer, Office at Dhamtari. The said transfer order was subsequently amended by order dated 3-7—2008 (PH-A) and instead of with the Attached 0fticer, Dhamtari he was transferred as Attached Officer, Sub Divisional Forest Office. Dhamtari. L 2) Shri Shrivastava, teamed senior oounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the transfer order deserves to be quashed, as it is due to mala tide exercise of power. Learned counsel chailenges the impugned order firstly; on the ground that the petitioner has been transferred within a period of 14 months from his present place of posting, secondly; the impugned order has been passed in order to accommodate the respondent No.2, thirdiy; the order is contrary to transfer policy because as per clause 5.2 of the transfer policy dated 29-5-2008 (Annexure—P/2) the employee should not be transferred if he has not completed 2% years service at one place of posting, fourthly; as per clause 10 of the transfer \ I \policy the petitioner cannot be relieved unless some officer is available for taking charge from him, and !astly; the peitétioner has been transferred to a piace where the past is not available. 3) Per contra; Shri Sao, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Stateirespondent No.1, would submit that the post of Attached Omeer in Dhamtari Forest Circte is availabte where the petitioner has been posted. The impugned transfer order has been passed in pubiie interest due to administrative exigency. The allegation of mala tide exercise of power that the impugned transfer order was passed only to accommodate the respondent No.2 is without any basis. By the impugned transfer order, 22 more officers have also been transferred from one place to other place. 4) l have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, perused the pleadings and the doouments appended thereto. lt is evident that there is no violation of any rules prohibiting such transfer and there is no chalienge to the effect that the authority issuing the transfer order is not competent to pass the order. The reasons to establish mala tide are not cogent and sufhcient. Mere statement that the order has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.2 is not found proved, as by the impugned order 22 more officers have also been transferred. So tar as the administrative exigency is concerned, the same cannot be a subject matter of judicial review unless the contrary is proved. The petitioner has failed to prove the mala fide. Thus, the impugned transfer order is not vitiated on account of mala tide exercise of power. 5) The courts or tribunals, which are appellate authorities should refrain from considering the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned; (See State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lai‘. 6} The Hon’bie Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. $tate of UP. and othersz summed up the scope of interference in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia, as under : "7. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settted by Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal. Following the aforesaid principles ' \_ :(2004)n scc 402 (2007)sSCC150 \ \ Gowri {aid down by the Supreme Court, the AHahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh v. State of UP. and Onkar Nath Tiwari v. Chief Engineer, Minor Irringation Deptt has held that the princip£e of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an empioyee which shouid not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of iaw in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the court finds that either the order is mala tide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders." 7) Applying the well settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases to the facts of the case on hand, wherein the mala tide alleged by the petitioner has not been proved and there is no challenge o the impugned transfer order on the ground of infraction of rules or non-competence of the officer passing the transfer order. The transfer policy is mere guidelines to be observed by the officers while passing the ‘orders. The transfer policy is not mandatory in nature and does not attain the status of the service rules. Thus, this petition does not warrant any interference by this Court. This writ petition being devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 8) Consequently, interim order passed eartier stands discharged and the pending appiications, if any, stand disposed of. H Réw‘ / 5 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge t \