(^Y^ BEFORETHEHON'BLEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. •5^ 12SM9 t- Petitioner .\\ ^/ ^M^ ^x ^yr w 1. S. ShrjVastava, S/aShri R.N. Shrivastgya, Agedabout 58 years, Presentty posted as Range Forest Officer, Amravati Range(Production), South Koiidagapn Forest Division, R/o Sargipalpara, Kondagaon, DistriGt Bastar(Jagdalpur)(C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 1) 2) State of ehhattisgarh, through Secretary, Departmentof Forest, Mantrataya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) Divisional Forest Qfficer, South Kondagaon Forest Division, District Bastar (Jagdalpur) (C.G.) WRITPETITIJ®NUNDERARriCL;E2260FTHE CONSTITUTIONOFINDIA PARTICULARS QF PETITICysiERSi As mentioned in the cause title above. PARTICU1-ARS OF THEltESPOiiOENI'S: .^\^:.L^^^ !'.•'"- :':' ' ':'- ..- ''••'• •'.' • • As mentioned in-theeausetitleiibove. A^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON fS) No. 5617 of2009 PETmONER RESPONDENTS R.S.Shrivastava. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Mt WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , SB: Hon'ble Shri Safish K. Aemhotri. J. Present: Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate tor the petitioner. Smt. SmitaGhai, PaiielLa'vi'yerforthe State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 07th day ofOctober, 2009) 1 Challenge in this petition is to the transfer order dated 22 September, 2009 (Aimexure P/l), whereby the petitioner as Range OfBeer.has been transferred from Produetion Amrawati, Kondagaon to Bande Range, Forest Division West Bhanupratappur, on administrative grounds. 2. The arounds for challenge to the impugned transfer orders are that the petitioner has been transferred to a place, where no post is available. Secondlv. the petitioner is likeivto retire within a period of 17 months and he is aot keeping good health. Thirdly, the provisions of transfer policy have not been followed, wherein it is provided that if the emplbyee has less than one year to retire, he may be posted at a place on the option given by the employee. 3. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appendedthereto. 4. It is well-settled priaciple of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as a&^iNit«niy« "^f' adnuiustTative exigency. This Courthas limited jurisdiction to interfere witli the transfer matter and except in the cases ofproved malafide, non- competence of aufhority passmg the transfer order and not being in conformity with tfae mles and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of sei'vice rales, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place m view of public interest and admimstrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another^, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State ofBihar & another, Union of India and anolher v. Janardhan Debanath & anofher?, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Koiin' and others and Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others5). 5. So far as contention oflhe petitioner Ihat fhe impugned transfer order is contrary to the traiisfer policy is concerned, the transfer policy is mere guidelines and not controlled by statutoiy provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and Ihereby no legal ri^it is confen-ed upon the emnlovee. 6. In Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G.Ralnam & Others, the Supreme Court observed as under: "20. It is well settled that the Central Govemment or the State Govemment can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certam circumstances; but that will not make such instroctions statutory rules which are justiciable in certaiii circumstances. fii order that such ' 1974 (4) SCC 3 -!d991)Supp2SCC659 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4(I995)-3SCC270 3 (2007) 8 SCC 150 s!'2007i8SCC212' executive instructions have the force ofstatutorv mle, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Govemment or the State Govenmient by some statute or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. Tlierefore, even if fhere has been aiiy breaeh of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Govemment by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia. " 7. Thus, the petitioner has not acquired any right to continue at a particular place. Eveii otherwise, there is no challenge to tfae impugned transfer order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference with the impuened transfer order. 8. Ifthe petitionerhas beentraiisferredto aplace where no post ofRange OfEcer is available, the respondent-authorities may consider the same and post tfae petitioner at a place, where a post of Range OfBcer is available andthere is vacancy, in public interest. 9. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. /^^f^ 4^^ Amit