^D HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BELASPUR S.B.: HOhLBi^S!^_JUSTjCESUMLKUMA_RSiNHA WRiT PETmON (S) N0. 5269^2010 PETiTIONER RESPONDEJMTS 1. 2. 3. Santos Kumar Kehra, Distt. S/o Late Shri Ram Pyare Kehra, aged about 35 years, Occupation Patwari, presently worksng Lachhanpur, Patwari Haika No. 41, Tahsil Janjgir, Di'stt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Collector, Janjglr- Champa (C.G.) Sub-divisionai Officer (Revenue) Sub- Division Janjgir District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) WRST PETiTSON UNDERARTjCLE_22^0FJ"H^CONMn'UTjON_OF SNDJA Appearance: Mr. Sunii Owani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. Tripathi, Pane! Lawyer for the State. ORALORDjR (13.09.2010) SUNIL KUIVJAR SINHA.J. Heard on admission. Petitioner- Santosh Kumar Kehra is working on the post of Patwari. By the impugned order dated 27.08.2010, he has been transferred from Lachhanpur to Bhogahpara. Mr. Gtwani submits that the petitioner was earlier working at Bhogahpara, and by an order dated 17.02.2010, he was transferred from Bhogahpara to Lachhanpur where the petitioner joined and thereafter by canceilng the earHer order, he is again being transferred from Lachhanpur to Bhogahpara. A perusal of order dated 17.02.2010 (Annexure-P-5) wouid show thatit was not a transfer order but it was an interna! arrangement made by the Sub-Divislon Officer and petitloner was shifted from one piace to another place. Mr. Otwani submits that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the earlier transfer order was cancelled, which means, the eariier order was a transfer order. ! am unable to accept the sald z\ '""%^^: WRiT PETSTION (S) N0. 5269/2010 argument. On!y on account of writing that the transfer order was canceiied, the earlier order woufd not become a transfer order when on the face of it, the same was an internai arrangement made by the department. He also argues that the petitioner has been frequently dispiaced. He refers to the poticy dated 22.06.2010. So far as the policy reiating to transfer is concerned, that does not confer any right to the Government servant to claim issuance of writ on the grounds contained in the policy. The poiicy has no statutory effect. The policy is simpiy a guideline to the authorities concern. Therefore, the petitioner has no iegal right to pray for issuance of a writ on the contents of the policy. It has not been dlsputed that the petitioner is working on a transferabie post. Transfer Is an incidence of service. No person working on a transferabie post can make his ciaim fbr posting at a particuiar place. It is for the employer to see as to who should be posted at which pface, keeping in mjnd the better functloning of the department as also the pubiic interest. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Rule or the Act, normalfy such orders are not to be interfered by a Court of law, is the settled view of the Apex Court in many cases. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is iiable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge