e^? 1€rz^- ^?^(t, \ V^tf IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) \ 63^ /2010 PETITIONER y Harish Varu S/o LateShriS.D^feFy Age about 43 years, R/o Govt. Higher Secondary School Godhi Durg(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. State of ChhattisgarhThrough Secretary Ministry of School Education Department ^^ D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur(C.G-) 2. District Education Officer District Durg(C.G.) -3. Principal, Government Higher Secondary School,Godhi, Durg District Durg (C.G.) L^^- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE.^ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ..^) ^ / ^^y./' -y -//^y /"(y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1039 of2010 PETmQNER RESPQNDENT8 Harish Vam. VER8US State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER .^RTICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITLTION OF INDIA SB: Honrble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Shii B.K.Chaki'abarty, Advocate for the petitioner. SM P.K.Bhaduri- Panel La^yer forthe State/respondents. OR.4LORDER 4. (Passed on llul dayof March, 2010) Challenge m this petition is to the order dated 30.06.2009 (Amiexure P/l) ^iereby the petitioner, working as Lecturer (Chemistry) at Govermiient Higlier Secondary School, Godhi, District Durg, has been transfeiTed to Govenmient Higher Secondaiy School, Bohara, District Durg. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since 110 other teacher is available at Godhi for teachitig Chemistry subject and the Principal, Higher Secondaiy School, Godhi has also written to the higlier authorities that till some other teacher is available for teaching Cliemistiy subject at Ghodhi, the petitioner may be allowed to continue at Godhi itself Shi'i Chaki'abarty further submits that the impugned transfer order is contraiy to tiie policy oftlie State Goveniment. I have heard leamed counsel appeariiig for the petitioner, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The aforesaid contentions ofthe petitioner deserves to be rejected as the impugned transfer order has been passed purely on admimstrative gi'ounds as alongwith the petitioner, several other persons have also been transferred. Further, even if no otlier teacher has been posted m place ofthe petitioner, it is for the State GovermBent to manage and nm the educational institutions and to see that the studies ofthe children are not haiiipered, Eveii ifthe Prmcipal i.e. the respondent No. 3 has vwitten 7. 8. to the higher authorities regarding retaining the services ofthe petitioner at the present place of posting itself^ it does not coiifer any right on the petitioner to remain at the present place ofposting. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ofticer/employee be posted, keeping in view public intcrest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except m the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in confomiity with the mles aiid regulations. The petitioner//employee camiot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service mles, employer has all tlie powers to post an employee at a particular place in view ofpublic interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTcmnl Nadzi and another^, Union oflndia and cmother v. Janardhcm Debcmcnh & anothe^, State ofM.P. and anofher v. S.S.Kourav and others and Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others4}. So far as contention ofthe petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contraiy to the policy ofthe State Govenmient is concemed, the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisioiis. The effect thereof is advisoiy in cliaracter and thereby no legal rlglit is conferred uposithe employee. (See: ChiefCommercialManager, Soiith Cerstral RaU-wcty, Secimdarabad & Others v.G. Ratnam & Others5). The Supreme Court, m Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others, held that "In a matter of transfer of a govemment employee, scope ofjudicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of ti'ansfer ligbtly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter oftraiisfef\ Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any peniiissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting intcrference. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. ^^--^ Sdl'.^*o^ 1 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (2004) 4 SCC 245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 0 (2009) 8 SCC 337 ^' ^^ s^n^