^9-IOT^ sw IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIONfS) NO.-^q 37/2010. PETITIONER: Dineshwar Ram Nirala, aged about Sft years, son of Sujchol £0l<la"i ftlff^ta. working as Upper Division Teacher at Govt. Govt. Middle school, Pandripani, Block Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondente ^•y \^?> '..•^\0..^ ^%^' ^\ ^y ?r'% Ayiy:y^:- ^.my f. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Education Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education Officer, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3'. Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Block Education Officer, Block Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTTTUTION OF WQIA -^'^/ ^^-^ © HIGH COURT OF CHHA'mSGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS WRTT PETmON CS) No. 3937 of2010 Dineshwar Ram Nirala. VERSU8 Stste ofChhattisgarh & Others. WMT_PETmON UNDER AR1ICLE 226 OF IHE CONS'HTUTION OP INDM SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Afirihotri. J. Present: Sfari C.J.K.Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer forffae State/respondaits. OKDERfOKAL) (Passed on 04a day of Jaauaiy, 2011) By this petition, Ifae petitioner impugns the orders dated 15.07.2010 (Amiexure P/l), whereby the petitiona- worfcing as Upper Division Teacher, at Govemment Middle School Pandripani, Bloek Kunkuri, District Jashpur, has beai transferred to Govemment Middle School, Ankira, Block Faraabahar, Distriet Jashpur. Leamed counsel appearing fbr tiie petitioner submits that earlier, on the basis ofrationalization policy, the petitioner was traasfetred finm Govenuneiit Midle School Dondapani to Govenuneiri: Middte School, Pandrapani, vide order dated 12.11.2009. Thiis, the present impugned order transferring the petitioner from his present place of posting within a span of seven months amounts to frequent transfer. The action of the respondent authorities is iilegal, arbitrary and in violation of tlie transfer policy of the State B Ctovemment. Further, the transfer has been to harass the petitioner. madejust to accommodate respondent No.5. 3. Qn the other hand, Shri Stmdhar, leamed Panel Lawyer appearinj tbr fhe State/respondents suhnuts that the transfer ofthe petitioner is purely on aAnimstrative grounds. 4. Heard leamed counsel aippearmg for the parties, perused fhe pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. It is an adnritted position in this case that the earlier transfer ofthe petitioner was on account ofrationalization policy. Thereafter, the impugned transfer order has been passed on account of administrative exigency. The petitioner has tailed to prove any illegality, arbitrariaess OT illegality except the self-same statement as alongwith the petitioner, 13 more persons have been transferred. Further, the posting ofthe petitioner is within the Distriet itself. 6. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence ofservice and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer^employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as adnunistrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to iaterfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved nulafide, non- competence ofauthority passing the transit'er or<ter and not being in confamuty with the mte and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be pennitted to remain at one plaoe fbrever. Under the provisioiis of service rules, employer has all Ihe powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of publie mterest and adnumstrative exigency. (See EfJicyappa v. State ofTamilNadu Bii li?1£itte^' and anothe^, Union oflndia and anolher v. Janardhan Debanath & another^, State ofM.P. cmd cawther v. S.SJCourav cmd other/ asdMohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others). 7. The Supreme Court, in Airports Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others^, held that "In a matter of transtor of a goveniment employee, scope ofjudicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order oftransfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so beeause ttae eourts do not substitute their own decision in the matter oftransfer". 8. So far as coiitentioa oflfae petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the policy of the State Govemmart is coneemed, fhe policies are mere guideUnes aad not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereofis adriscay in eharacter and thereby no legal right is eonferred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Raibvay, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Othersfl). 9. Even otherwise, there is no challfflige to the impugned order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, wan-aniting uderferenee. 10. For Ifae reasons as afbrestated, the petitiai is dismissed. i Sd/- ;• 1 SatishK.Agnihotri i Judge Aimt '1?74(4)SCC3 2(2004)4SCC245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 "(2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2009) 8 SCC 337 ' (2007) 8 SCC 212