^z HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ Appellant (Petitioner) Versus WritADpeal No. 317 of 2009 Dr. H.P. Diwedi, S/o Shri Sant Das Dhyedj. aged about 53 years, working as Manager Govemment poultry from Kondagaon, Dist. Bastar (CG) Resoondents 1 (Respondents) 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary/under Secretary, Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Director, Services of Veterinary Doctors, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) The Joint Director, Services of Veterinary Dist. Office Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (CG) Present Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel forthe appellant. Mr. Vinay Harit. learned Dy. A.G. with Mr. S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (23rd November, 2009) PerDhirendra Mishra. J This writ appeal is directed agalnst ttie order dated 1 7th September, 2009 passed in W.P.(s)No.5319/09, whereby petitioner's petition against his fransferorder of Annexure A/3 has been dismissed. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant has served in the naxalite affected tribal area for more than six years and therefore. as per policy ofthe State Government, he oughtto have been transferred to some general areas. However, he has been transferred to another naxalite affected tribal area-Dantewada by the transfer order, whjch is in directien contravention of the transfer policy of the State Government. He further submits that after transfer order was passed, the appellant has made a representation of Annexure A/9 and requested for either cancellation of the transfer order or to transfer him to some other general areas. However, the said representation has not been considered. On the other hand. learned counsel for the State submitted that transfer policy ofthe State is a mere guideline and the same does not confer upon the employee a vested a right. The appellant was postedat Kondagaon on his own request as would be evident from the document of ^inexure A/5 and his transfer order has been passed on account of administrative exigency. The learned Single Judge. taking into consideration the settted ^ princjples of law in the cases of transfer, has refused interference in the matter of transfer of the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the documents annexed with the appeal. Taking into consideration that the appellant has served in his present pjace of posting for almost six years and also considering that he had opted for his present place of postingat his own cost, we find no substance in this appeal. the same deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, accordingly, dismissed. —~— Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge