^y HIGHCOURT 08= CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(S). N0.6048/2010 Himmat Singh Gajbhiye, son of Late Shri Natthu Singh Gajbhiye, agsd about 58 years, Manager, GraiTiudyog, Zila Panchayst Office, Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Chhattisgarh Khadi Gramudyog Board, through its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Khadi Tatha Gramudyog Board, Raipur 2 State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary', Mlnistry of Gramudyog, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 3 Shri Girish Gaydhani, Manager, Gramudyog, Ziia PanchayaS Office, Raipur WRIT PETIT10N UNOER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONST'.TUTiON OF 1MDSA B P. Sharma, Counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. R. Tripathi, PaheS Lawyer for fhe SSate advance copy- (22.18.201S) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard Petitioner Himmat Stngh Gajbhiye is working on the post of Manager, Gramudhyog, District Panchayat Office, Raipur By the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure P/1), he has been transferred from Raipur to Jashpur on administrative arounds Leamed counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of transfer of the petitioner has been passed in violation of the transfer policv. as the same has been passed W.P.(S».No 6048/2010 on 06 of QctQbsr 201 0, whersas, according to the policy, a!l the transfers are to bs effected prior to 15 of July 2010. He aiso argued that the petitioner has been transferred from Raipur to accommodate respondent N6.3, therefore, the said action on the part of theconcemed authority is malafide 1 have heard leamed counsel for the parties at tength. So far as the policy relating to transfer is concerned, it does not confer any right to an employee to claim issuance of a writ on the grounds contained in the policy. The pollcy has no statutory effect. The policy is simply a gyideline to the authorities concemed. Therefore, the petitioner has no !ega! riaht to pray for issuance of a writ on the contents of the policy. So far as the transfer in ban period Is concerned; the same is also a around based on the contents of the transfer policy. Moreover, even the pollcy daes not impose complete ban on the transfer of an employee in administrative exigency, which is very clear from the contents of the poliey itself filed as Annexiirs P/2 The grounds retating to transfer of the petitioner to accommodate respondent No.3 also cannot be entertained. Respondent No 3 has also been transferred by the impugned order dated 06-10.2010 (Annexure P/1), whlch shows that he has been locally shifted from one office to another offtae at Raipur itself, therefore, it cannot be that the Detitioner has been transferred to accommodate respondent No.3 at Raipur, because, respondent No.3 was posted st Raipur prior to the impiigned order of transfer of the petitioner. During the course of arguments, on being pointedly asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that since when the petitioner is posted at Raipur, he submits that the Detitioner is oosted at Raiour since more than 7 vears. W.P.(S^. No.6048/2010 •^A ^ shyna It has not been disputed before this Court that the is working on a transferable post Transfer is an incidence of service, no person working on a transferable post can make his claim for posting at a partteular place It is for the employer to see as to who should be posted at which place, keeping in mind the better functioning of the department as also the pubtic interest Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Rule or the Act, normally such orders are not to be interfered bv a Court of law, is the settled view of the Apex Court in manv cases. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any substance in the petition The petition is liable to summarilv. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge