W._P_(S) No,59ee/2007 Hira Ram Sahu, S/o Late Prahiad Sahu, aged about 49 years, Occupation Service, presentiy posted As Constabte, resident of Dharam Nagar, DhamSari Road, behind Primary School, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secreta"/, Department of Home (Police), Mantralaya, Dau Kah/an Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director Generai .of Police. Chhatfisgarh, Police Head Quarter, Raipur. Assistant Inspector General of Police (Admn-i!), Office of Director Generai of Poiice Chhattisgarh, Poiice Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) iT PETITiON UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND!A Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Ad'/ocate with Shri Amit Verma, Counse! for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Govt. Advocate for the State on advance copy. >ER (15.10.2007) (Passedi'n W.P. (S»Nos. SS62/2007, S963/2007, S9S6/20fl7_, 5967/2007, 5972/2007, 5996/2007 & 6147/2007) SUNIL KUMAR SiNHA, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of fransfer dated 1.09.2007, by which, after rspatriation to the Headquarter of the parent department, a new posting has been given to the petitioner. . G ^h K./- s^ Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argues ihat previously the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Transport Department and after compietion of the deputation period, he was repatriated to the parent department and when the petitioner gave his joining at Poiice Headquarters, Raipur, he has been transferred and posted to a District, which is a naxalite affected area. He argues that there is a policy of the Government dated 01/04/2006, according to which, the transfer has to be affected. He refers to clause 7 of the Policy and submits that the poticy is not reasonable and foilowing that policy, the transfer shouid not have been affected. He further refers to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Kendriva VMyalaiya Sangafhan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandev and others, Para 4 ofthe aforesaid decision reads as under: "Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts uniess it is shown to be ciearly arbitrary or visited by ma!a fide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principies governing the transfer (See Ambans Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 (Suppl.) 4 SCC (169). Untess the order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in vioiation of operative guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it (see Union oflndia v. S.L. Abbas, AiR 1993 SC 2444). VVho should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of operative any guidelines or rules the Courts should not ordinafily interfere with it. In Unlon of fndia and Ors. V. Janardan Debanath & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 245, it was observed as foiiows : "No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any Segal right to be posted forever at any one particuiar piace or placeof his choice since transfer of a particular empioyee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one piace to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in pubiic interest and efficiency ..^-»««aa&.«a«««' ^ aTri<Bff**wu'rfl'—r-~ir-l/-i^^iasSa &M in the public administration. Uniess an order of transrer is shown to be an outcome of maia nde exercise or stated to be in vioiation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normaily cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appeliate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in Nationai Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574" After going through the contents of the Writ Petition as.aiso the decision referred to by iearned counsei for the petitioner, it is ci'ear that transfer is an incidence of service and nobody worta'ng on a transferabie post can ciaim for his postsng at a particular place. Uniess the order of transfer is vitiated by maiafide or is shown to be affected by extraneous consideration or is issued against any statutory Ruies or the Act, the same cannot be interfered by a Court of Law. in the present case, iearned counsei for the petitioner could not make out a case either of arbitrariness or of maiafide or of extraneous consideration or that the transfer order is passed against any statutory rules or the Act, rather the Poiicy referred by learned counsel for the petitioner itself says that after repatriation, a person has to be posted in naxaiite affected area, therefore, there does not appear to be violation of the poiicy also. So far as reasonableness of the Policy is concerned, this Policy Vi/as framed as back as in the year SOQS and it was weil within the dominion of the makers of the Policy to frame rt. VVhiSe exercising the power of judiciai reviev/, in such matters, the High Court does not sit as an Appeitate Authority. it is the settSed principte that the Courts are not to interfere in the matter of policy, vi/hich admittedly lies in the dominion of the makers of the same, provided these authoritiss do not transgress their constitutional Jimits or statutory powers. _!„ ^ Shyna Unless the action or the decision of the Government is shown to be unconstitutionai or contrary to statutory provisions, or arbifrary or irrational, or is abuse of power, or discriminatory, the same cannot be interfered by the High Court under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the matter relates to poiice force. What should be the best poiicy for posting of the poiice force to meet the need of the people at large or to serve the exigency of service is the exclusive dominion ofthe department itsetf. The department has always a choice in baiancing pros and cons relating to the poiicy. Learned counsei for the petitioner coutd not make out acase that either the policy was framed by transgressing any specific provision or is arbitrary or maiafide, therefore, the arguments on the ground of reasonableness of the policy, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be entertained. do not find any reason to interfere with the order oftransfer. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinlia Judge