IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No./'9>;H Izog9 WV Leos Tigga, S/o Late Shri Lucas Tigga, Aged about 42 years, Occupation — Inspector of Police, Working as Station House Officer, Traffic Police Station, Raipur, Chhattisgarh PETITIONER VERSUS M RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh Department Of Home, D. K. S. Bhavan, Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh / 2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh / 3. Chairman, Police Establishment Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. ’/Chief Election Officer, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh K Inspector General of Police (Admn.) Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 63/ inspector General of Police, Raipur Chhattisgarh 7. We» WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 .OF THE CONSTlTUTlON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT lN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OR THE LIKE.‘ . ,i ’7! Superintendent of Police, Raipur, Chhattisgarh w é? \ M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILA$PUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 1371 of 2009 PETITIONER Leos Tigga Versus RESPONDENTS The State of C.G. and others. Post for pronouncement of the order on 20.8.2009. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker". Judge $ 9ao“ “t‘%n>\,‘,. % AK” yo . %’Xx. ‘ ‘( v ( no \ é, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 1371 of 2009 Leos Tigga PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of C.G. & others. Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, D‘y‘fAG. for the respondents [State WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER ( 2o .os.2oos) With the consent of the counsel for the parties the petition is heard finally. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 by which the petitioner who is working as Traffic Inspector at Raipur, has been transferred to Bijapur in the same capacity. 3. Counsel for the/petitioner submits that in the present place of posting the petitioner had joined on 23.8.2008 after being transferred from Balrampur and now by the order impugned he has again been sent to a naxallite affected area. He funther submits that earlier the petitioner has already spent more than 12 years in the naxallite’f/ affected area whereas according to the policy of the State} Government the Inspectors are required to be posted in such areas‘l only for a period of five years. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs ‘l‘ to the scheduled tribe community and in view of the circular dated l 12.6.2008 issued by the State Government the petitioner cannot be I subjected to frequent transfer on administrative exigency as has l l l l .‘(p gr ,9;— been done in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that as the petitioner is a member of scheduled tribe community, he is being harassed by the authonties subjecting him to frequent transfers that too In the naxallrte affected areas 5. Per contra counsel for the respondents/State submits that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency’and he has no right to remain in a particular place of his own choice. He further submits that even as per the policy of the State Government the minimum period prescribed for the inspectors to serve in the naxallite affected area is five years but it does not prescribe the maximum period with regard to their posting in such areas. Thus it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that as he has already served in the naxaliite affected area for more than 5 years, he can not be posted in such area again. He further submits that the petitioner can not take the advantage of the policy of the Government dated 1.4.2006 (Annexure P-5) because they are merely the guidelines having no statutory force. Relevant portion of the said policy reads as under: 4.%WW$‘H§EI§:- O ...................................... (i) .............1 '. ........ I ............... (ii)wwd$ma%m#mm mmdmosasfwwrrlaadataw mm IWwumWwoaatf mmaahmi mmma wwwmmmi 6. As regards the harassment meted out to the petitioner at the hands of the authorities on account of his belonging to scheduled tribe community, it has been argued by the state counsel that in the administrative exigency any employee can be transferred to any place irrespective of the community he belongs to. This apart, no material has been placed by the petitioner to demonstrate that it is only the officers belonging to the scheduled tribe community is being \ i i i g6 ~—’5' shifted to the naxallite affected areas and not the others. He further submits that in the State of Chhattisgarh out of 16 revenue districts 12 have been declared as naxailite affected areas and therefore the police ofhcers are bound to be transferred to such areas irrespective of caste and creed as is alleged by the petitioner in this case. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. lt is settled law that transfer is an incidence of service and a government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at the place of his own choice. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order; instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department apprising them of their grievances. Which government servant is to be posted where is the exclusive consideration of the employer. The submission of the petitioner that an incumbent has to be posted in a naxallite area only for a period of five years, has no force at all because the Guidelines of the State Government stipulate the minimum period of posting in a naxallite area as five years but this does not mean that the incumbent has got exemption from being posted in such areas having remained once in such areas for five years. lt would not/be out-of place to mention that no maximum l period with respect to their posting in such areas has been stipulated in the said guidelines. lf administrative exigency so warrants any government servant can be posted anywhere and such decision . . taken by the Government is always in consonance with the judicial . pronouncements of the Supreme Court in series of cases. Further} the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate the fact that as he i belongs to the scheduled tribe community, he is being subjected to frequent transfer that too in naxallite affected areas and therefore ‘ the order impugned cannot be interfered with only on the basis of 1 vague allegations of mala fides. ,4, 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Coutt is of the considered view that the impugned transfer order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference with the same. The petition is absolutely without substance and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. lt is dismissed as such. 10. Before parting with the case, this Court hopefully expects the high ranking police officers of the State of Chhattisgarh to inculcate a sense of enthusiasm amongst the police personnel so as to combat the notorious anti social elements active in the State and redeem the innocent State dwellers from the deplorable condition being faced by them, by deploying the police machinery at the places irrespective of the Naxallite ridden ones if administrative exigency indeed so demands. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge l