c.T''{^ ®c -^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. (S) No.\^^2> / 2010 ^ PETrTIONER ^"' ^,rf ^^ ,.^/ ,<^sy ^y ^^' . ^ RESPONDENTfS) :1: ,^^^«f.^:~. Mahendra Kumar Singh S/o. Late Ganesh Singh Aged about 56 years Working as Head pump Technician, Public Health Engineering Sub-Division: Baikunthpur, Head Qtrs.: Kudeli Distt.: Korea (CG). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (CG). The Executive Engineer, Public Health Machinery Branch Baikunthpur Distt.: Korea-(CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AF^ -2-% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.1583 of2010 Petitioner Versus Respondent Mahendra Kumar Singh State of Chhattisgarh & another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri N.N. Roy, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 12th day ofApril, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the transfer order dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner, working as Head Pump Technician in Public Health Engineering Department, Baikunthpur, H.Q. Kudeli has been transferred to Block-Bharatpur H.Q. Kotadol, District-Korea within the same District 1. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferredfrom the present place of posting on the basis of recommendation made bythe Minister for the Public Health Engineering Department on 18.03.2010, without there being any complaint against the petitioner. Thus, the transfer order is bad and vitiated. To buttress his contention learned counselplaced his reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others . Learned counsel further submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed onlyon the basisof instructions given by the minister telephonically. Further, the impugned order has been passed during the ban period, which is contrary to the transfer policy. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The 3. 1 (2007)88cc 150 ^ contention of the petitioner deserves to be rejected on the simple ground that in a catena of decisions, it has been held that transfer policy/circular is a mere guideline and it is not enforceable by way of writ in exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The transfer policy/circular does not have force of a statute. Thus, the transfer order is just and proper. The contention of thepetitioner that there is no written complaint against the petitioner and as such, the Minister has no basis to make a recommendation for transfer of the petitioner, is without any basis. There may be cases where oral complaints are made as the Minister/M.LA. is the representative of the people in the Legislature to express the grievances of the public. On the basis of oral complaint also, a representation can be made and on the said representation, transfer of an employee, cannot be held as vitiated. The Supreme Court, in Mohd. Masood (supra), observed as under: "8. Learned counsel for the ai. submitted that the impugned transferorder of the appellant from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana, Disthct Meerut was made at the instance of an MLA. On the other hand, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 that the appellant has been transferred due to complaints against him. In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. Afterall, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in fhe legislafure to express the grievances ofthe peopleand ifthere is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard-and-fast rule that eve/y transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would bevitiated. Itall depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infirmityin the impugned transfer order. " ^ .®wyir:E® 7. The petitioner has not pointed out any other facts, which indicate any malice on the part ofthe concerned Minister. 8. 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 employee may 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.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and anothef^, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothei3, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Koun/ and others , Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra), Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G.Ratnam & Others and Airports Authohty of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey& Others6). 9. 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. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Arun Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2 1974(4)8cc 3 3 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 4 (1995)38cc 270 5 (2007)88cc 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337