IM.S. Dongre, son of Late Oomani Dongre, aged about 50 years, working as Range OffEcer/Forest Rangsr, Durg, Forest Divisior; Durg, District Durfl.Chhattioarh l;^^:^y ..yEA.i''l»"iiJui Wc^ssi ;i.iu^ii ii., 1 State of Chhattisgarh; Secretary, Forest De^ Dau Kalyan Singn Bhawan, Raipur rt'^^"t^^t^f^ \-+i 11 ja^t^^^jCiii i ( 2 Chlef Forest Conservator. Rajpur, ^|l»,i^^.A*!;^.,n.—."SA -</i !i iCi^i:S~^Qti ii s 3 Divislonai Forest Officer, UISlHCi. UUTQf L'HHQIII^Sm '"^it &—i'Liji.''i >n.i '"f^r'isir''s ••staf' ii a a ~i»j' B a »e^'a ti! •i^ifu gs %?sB»'^u"c"t !^-S&^^u'r~^^t»iE^ ^rdi^ id'irf^ ?lm r-.c.t Jitendra Gupta, CounseS fortne petrtioner. Ct.,^;4-~ l<~:.~ Q^.,»^E p -.,.*rt*-.'--c<~»4'?-- <'tA-!^- o'unKffl u-ain, raii^ii L.avy'vissi s^i tilC ^i.sSi.O. 'nc-i W) n.»ift^ft'i ^••U.fcg^'^Bitn^ S^ S .UM Meara. Peritioner M.S. Dongre 's wc ^aer. Bv the iinouaned order dated nsferred from Forest Range Durg rKing on tne post o? horest 15.07.2010. he has been g to Flysng Squad Office, Dura on adminlstrative grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner su&mits trtat flrstiy, 69 Range Officers were transferred bv order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P/1), in wrilch, the name of the petitioner is nat there, but in another order dated 15.07.2010, his name finds place st •Sl. No.7. Hss submission io that the percentage of transferred persons is more than'lhe limit specified in the transfer poi^q/, therefore, the subsequent order daied 15.07.2010 ss Dad >n law. '<^, '^'s^^^.. ^ •SSWs9i. )s w '^ss^' /^' *Sk-^.iSyi IU.»>BI s~ 'he petstloner has been locaiiy snifted from Durg Range offlce to a loes! offlce at Durg. There is no prohlbJtion that more than one order cannot be Issued by tne Government. So far as percentage of tne persons tra.nsferred is concerned, ths same is the outtooK of the Govemment and if there ss any vioiation of the policy of the Government, tio wrlt petltlon wouid lie under Artlde 226 of the Constitut'on of incila. 1 have rteld In many cases that tiie polscy issued &y tne Government Is simpiy a guidefjne to the concerned autr'orities. The poiicy has no statutory effect. Therefore, the petstioner has no leaai right to pray for'issuance of a writ on tne contents of ihe potiq?. Transfer Is an inclaence of serv'ice, no person'worKing on a transferable pos? can maKe his ciaim for post'no at a partlcuiar ptace. It Is for the employer to see as to who should be posted at which place, keeping In mlna the better functioning of the department as aiso the pubSlc interest. Uniess the oroer of transter Is snown to De vstiated by maiafldes or extraneous consideratlons or It Is shown to be passed against any statutory Ruie or the Act, normai!y sucn orders are not to be interfered bv a Court of iaw, is the settied view of the Apex Court in many cases. For the foregoing reasons, I do not flnd any substance in the petition. The Detifion is liabie to be and js hereby dismissea. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge