•3^p 1 (, IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. 6 ^^ 72009 PETITIONER /^-<^- '..-•^XW v..-&\^v'"' ...^^' ^'"/.^"..-'"" ^- ^* ^:>'-i y^.-"" ^^' RESPONDENTS ^ ^ Ramanand Goyal, S/o Late Rambilas Goyal, aged about 47 years, Posted as Patwari at Gram Khonwa, Patwari Halka No. 23, Tehsil Bhiyathan, District Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Revenue & Aapda Prabandhan Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2] Collector (Land Records), Ambikapur, Surguja., District Surguja (CG) 3] Commissioner, Land Records, Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur (CG) .4] Tahsildar, Bhiyathan, District Surguja (CG) .5] Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ?"Nt111**^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH: BtLASPUR WRIT PETITION fSVNo. 6506 OF 2009 PETITIONER Ramnarayan Dubey Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattis&arh & Othens WRIT PETmON (S) No. ^09 OF 2009 PETITIONER Ramanand Goyal Versus RESPQNDENTS StatQ of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia) Single Bench : Hon'bieShri Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Maneesh Sharma.Advocate forthe petittoners. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. A^vocate General forthe State. ORDER (ORAD (Pas$edQri^hi&1^ttdayofJ(ujy,2011) 1; Both the ^Btition ari^s from tiro common opder, hence, botti the matters are being taken up tpgether and disposect of by ttie common order. 2. In both ttie petition i.e. W.P.(S) No.6506/2009 & W.P.(S) No.6509/2009, the petitioners have filed the petition, clialtengung the order dated 3.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, whereby, the service of the petitionere were transferred from Ramanujnagar to Lundra and Bhaiyathan to Ramanujganj respectively, and order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P-2),whereby, a detailed direction reflarding transfer of Patwaries, those who have worked for five yeare in any specificjarea and the parameters describing the manner and mode of the transfer has been bnefly stated. 3. The sote contentions of the petitioners lare that, both the transfer orders are contrary to the transfer policy dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure P-5). Further, there is no administrative exigency on account of which the transfer orders have been passed aiKl as such tte same ^ .-^r ^l. ;t^.,,^l%fe^ 1 ^ggps^l 1 !<^ ^yy 'f tNNI?l?fc may be quashed. The petitioners ftirther submitted that, the transfer policy is related to those patwaris who haye com|rieted fiveyears in 1 any particular area. The pr6sent petitioner^ have worked only for two 'fc ':. ' ' _ • '; : and half years intheir respective places €|fposting and as such the f' ~' '! .. • ' '. transfer orders are bad and none^'m theieyes of law swid desen^® tobequashect. Ideiifical issue came up for consideratiori before thte Court In ttie |er of Savitri Darvey v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anottwr 'm A-. ..„„ . -— -.. - . t. . . .. ' W^(S) No.6978 of 2009. This Court al^er havlng consictered flie y •' • " ' • ' ti ' ' ;- [corrtentions crf the parties, observed as under : '?7. Even (riheiwise, the submfssioft of tto peSSoner is conto'ary to the wett^.s^t^ pRfWf^c^^^ ffiat flf ffam®is any violatkmofanyewcutiwinstruetwfs thatmayii^be the grm/ndforinterienngwiffit thetmn^ferwvter. Thw, the aforesaki contwstion vat fhe fransfer oicfer hes been passed confra/y to #» ciwular/polscy issued by (be (Sovemmerri, te n^scted The drwiy/ poffcy Is inepe guideliiw^ and nsst oontrofled by statiitory pfiwiwvis or under sonw pfovi^ions of the C<^!^tt/tion pmvkliing Qmrefor. The efiect ffiiereof is adWsoiry in dwracter and iberefcy no tegal ri^t is <wnfwved ^pon the emptoyee. (See: Chief Commefeial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & OtheFsv. G. Rafnam^ Others1). 8. ft is well-settled ffiat imnsfer is an inddence of sefwce and itfs for ttw emptoyer todectdeasto where a pariicular officer/emptoy^ be posted, keepiRg inwew pubBcinterest as well as adminislyative ewgwicy. Ttiis Cowthas lim ed junscSction to interfere with the tmns^r ms^er, except in the cases of pwveel mala ftte, porK»/]^oetence of authority passing the transfer order and nat being in conformsty with the mtes and ; regulattons. The petitioner^mptoyee cannot be permittecl to mmain at qw p/ace forever. Under the pi'owskyis of service rules, employer has all the pcwws fo post an emptoyeQ st a partscular plw:^ in view of publkt intemSt and administirative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. SteteKrf Tafml Nacki aiwl anGthei^, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and oSiers v. Stats of Bihar & anothei3, Union of India and eno^her y. ^a/ia/cff?an Debanath & another4, State of M.P. and anoffwr v. S.S.Kourv and othefs5 and Mohdt. Ma^ocf Ahmad v. State (^U.P.&Others^)." . ; IC2007)8SCC212 ? 2 1974(4)8cc 3 ! ; 3 (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 4 (2004) 4SCC 245 i(I995)3SCC270 6 (2007) 8 SCC 150 ^—-u ^-•^•^ 1. y^ Ashok 5) Thus, issue fei re®ardto transfer of the petitioners stand concluded in Savftri Darvey (supra). There is no chaitenge to the impugned transfer orders on any permissibte legat grounds {as aforestated, warranting indulgence of this Court under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India. 6). For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are dismissed. No or<jer asto costs. ; ——— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge kHNIIIlNl^^ ~~%