ffE^-S,'^... A "°%,. ^ "^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4177 of 2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Geeta Ray, W/o Shri Raj Kumar Ray, aged about 38 years, R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Kahauhunda, Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, hlealth and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG). The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kirodimal Government Hospital, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). Chanda Das, A.N.M. Primary Health Centre, Judda, District Raigarh (CG). The Director, Health Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J Present: Shri Gautam Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. (Passed on this fS~ cfay of September, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 5-5-2007 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sub Health Gentre, Judda to Primary hlealth Centre, Loing. 2) Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitipner, would submit that the transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the transfer policy. The impugned order was passed within a period of one year 3 month only to accommodate 3 respondent. There was no administrative exigency. 3) Per contra, Shri Bhatia, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State would submit that the transfer order has been passed in public interest due to administrative exigency. The allegation of mala fide exercise of power that the /^ ^^•"-a '^ "^? ^ 1SSS^"' ^:- impugned transfer order was passed only to accommodate 3 respondent is without any basis. Learned counsel submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that there is no violation of any rules or regulations prohibiting such transfer and there is no challenge to the effect that the authority issuing the transfer order is not competent to pass the order. The reasons to establish mala fide are not cogent and sufficient. Mere statement that the order has been passed only to accommodate 3 respondent is not found proved. So far 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 fide 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 Lal ). 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others summed up the scope of interference in exercise of its discretionaryjurisdiction underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India. "7. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by the 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 laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Couri: in Vijay Pal Singh v. State ofU.P. and Onkar Nath Tiwah\i. Chief ' (2004) 11 SCC 402 2 (2007) 8 SCC 150 [ ^ /A. ^ '^ 8 " '^> Engineer, Minor Irrigation Deptt. has held that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a couri: of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the court finds that either the order is mala fide 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 ofthe case on hand, wherein there is no challenge on the ground of mala fide, 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. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri