COURT OF EHHATTISGARt-l AT HOSV8l£ MLASPUR NO.IT-US QF 2010 WRIT PETITION PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ...•'<i^^ ^-•:^cs!i^-"" / M.L. Agrawal, S/o Shri Hari Mohan Agrawal, aged about 59 years, R/o Tahsil Colony Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) -VERSUS'.. •.--..y-.:;;-,„..,,1,' 1. Stateof Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Department of Foo£j, CiyiLSupjSly pnd ; CQnsyrneF;;;,; l?i?Qtecti6n -;1.;'.. •••):;•;; T .ifl"''' ^ C>epartment, D.K.S. Bhawan, ^lantratayat Raipur{C.G.) I..' ^2. TMeCoEnnnissiQner, Food Civil Supply and Consurrter Protection Department, birectorate, ftatgur (C.G.) ^3. The COltectpr, fisitaspur, Djstrict Bilqspur(C.G.) WRIT PETITESftl UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COftKTn-UTIQN 1. OF INDIA PARTICULARS OFTHF PFTTTIQNER j : 2. As given inthe cause.tttle.; PARTICULAR^W mF<?l=<Si:Jf>RlE}ENtS As given in the cause title. , 9 S!M 81 1 ^ 8f; •I ir -^..; HIGHGOURTQFiCHHATTISGARH^BILSSPUR PET1T10NER RESPONDENTS WRITPETIT)QN(S)NQ.17430F2010 M.L.Agrawal Versus State of Ctihattisgarh & Qthers (WritPetitibnunderArticie226oftheConstitutionoflndia) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish.K. Agnihotri, J. Present - Shri Ashok Soni, Adyocate for the petitioner. ShriA.V. Sridhar, PanelLawyerfortheState. ClRDERrORAL) (Passedonthis 19th day^f.April, 2010) 1. By thjs petition, fhe petitioner challenges ttie tegality and validity of the Qrcler datett 2^ whereby the petitioner Mas? Been transferred f^ Distriet Bilaspur to Sarguja. 2. LeamedcounselappearingforthepetitionersubmitsthEttlhe petitioner has been transferredNlireesfime§withinaperiodQf three years. The impygned transW^order has been issyed against the transfer poliey arid the same has been passed during the ban period. Normally, an employee is eonsiderecl fbrtransferaftercompletionof2%yearspQStingataparticular ptace. Thus, the petitjoner is'a yictim of frequent transfers. The father ahd mother of the petitioneF are aged about 83 years and 78 years, respectively; and are suffenng frorn several ailments. On the event of execution of transfer oMer; theyshallsufferirreparablelQss. ^ ..01 •^ ^ 1 have heard leamed eounsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The contention of the petitioner deserves to be rejected on the simpte ground that in a catena ofdecisions it has been held thattFansferpolic^cireylarisamereguideline and it is not ehforceable by way of writ in exereise of writ jurisdiction 6f the High Court.Thetransferpolicy/circulardoes not have force of a statute. The transfer order has been passed on the basisofadministrative exigency. Frequent transfers means^ an empleyee is transferred frequently on several ocGasions. The grievance of the petitlonierthatthieimpygnedordercomeswithintheambitof freqyent,transfers iSi'nQt well establjshed and not sustainable in law. The petitioner has failed to prove the malafide and lack of competence ofthe officer passing the impugned transfer order.Thus.thetransferorderisjustancl^proper. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an ineidenee of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer7posting 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 emplqyee may be posfed anywhere at the instance oftlrc employer in public interestand administrative exigency. Further^ jt is fdr the Government to post another person if anyvacancyarisesonaGcounfoftransfer/postingof an employee. Thus, the imRugned order warrants no g; 7. Gowri 1^% interference. (See E^Royappe^v. Stete ofJamif A/aeto and anotheft, Shilpi Bose (Mrs^ and otheis v/State^^ c^^^^^^^ anothet2, StateofM.P. and anotherv. S.S.Hourvand otfteps3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & QQier^ Ghief Commera^ Managw,SOt^ CentralRalw^, Secundersfyad <S Q e/s v. ©;Ratoam & OWere3 and A^DO^ Atrffto/ft^ c/ /nd/a v. Ra/eevRa(anPartcfey<S Offie/s6)/ . Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for thie-rieasons mentioned heFeinabove; there is no merit in the case. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at ttie motlon stageitself. • Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge <1874(4)SCC3. 2(1991)Supp2SCC,659 3(1995)3SCC:270'. -: 4(2007)8SCe;150 , 5(2007^8SC©212. 6(2009)8SGG337 •