^ d^ L<£r72 G'S BILASPUR (G.G) [.P. (Sl HO. ^O ^S OF 2011 ^o- ^ 'i.-^s^-: -^-?i^ . ci^--"'^A?.-i-" v^'.S®s^. ^s'A--" r<-. Y^ *i5-B.l^ij(j»{ \^\ CT^ \'^. /< ^ 3. Ishwar Lal Kumeti, aged about 53 years, S/o Shri Ghasiaram Kumeti, Senior Internal Audit and section officer, Janpad Panchayat Kanker, Distt.Kanker (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat & Social Welfare Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Collector, North Baster Kanker (C.G.) Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department North Baster Kanker (C.G.) Rajebdra Singh Rathore, S/o Not Known, Kanker, Distt. North Baster Kanker (C.G.) "%, ^eSSSSsk 1 "iEEiS?is>" "f i 'V 'f!€//^ '^^y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4083 OF 2011 Ishwar Lal Kumeti Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 28th day of July, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Janpad Panchayat Kanker to Janpad Panchayat Antagarh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.4 and even the petitioner has not completed Wi years of service at the present place of posting, therefore, the impugned order is against the transfer policy framed by the State Government. 4. There is no allegation on the part of the petitioner that there was any ma/a fide exercise of power or the officer has no competence to pass the impugned order and/or the impugned order was vfolative of statutory rules and regulations except that the order was passed within 2% to accommodate the respondent No.4. It is well settled that if an employee is transferred some other employee is posted in his place and this exercise cannot be held as mala fide exercise ofpower. So far as transfer of the petitioner against the transfer policy prescribed by the State Government is concerned, the Supreme Court in Chief Commercial Manager, South Cenfral Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others , observed as under: "20. It is well settled that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not make such instructions statutory rules which are justiciable in certain circumstances. In order that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rule, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. " Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employeemay be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if *^ any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P. __L^2007)8SCC212 1 T Qowri Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and anofhe^, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another , State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others , Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. Sfate of U.P. & Others and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). 7. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. 8. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SatishK.Agnihotn Judge