(^ ^ Co^ IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. WRITPETETCON (S)NO.^33 OF 2011 PETCTIONEft ^? - ^9 .^y^ 'k^<A£vx ^y ^y:.^ •^^ -<0 A ^yRESPONbENTS Q-"' Antram Nishad S/o. Shri Chhedurans Nishad, aged about 59 Years, Occupation - Service, Rosted QS Pfltwarj at Haita No. 16 KflBdel Tahsil & Distt.- Dhamtari ( C.G.} VERSUS ^' 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.6.) i. t>istt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) •»-" 3. Seetaram Sinha , Patwari , Posted at Patwari Halka No. 6 Guya, Tahsil & Distt- &hamtari ( C.G.) w WRIT PETCTION UNDER ARTCCLES Z26 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INDL4 FOR ISSVEANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. 1. PARTCCULARS OF THE PETCTCONER : As stated in the cause title ebove. ^ HIGKCOJJRT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4430 OF 2011 PETITIONER Antram Nishad RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 8"' day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Patwari Halka No. 16 Kandel, Tahsil & District Dhamtari to Patwari Halka No.17, Amali, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari. 3. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred in violation of the transfer policy of the State, as the petitioner has not completed V/i years of service at the present place. He further submits that the petitioner is going to retire from the service in the month of November, 2012. Thus, the impugned order is against the transfer policy of the State Government and may be quashed. 4. On perusal of the transfer policy, it is evident that the'requirement of posting at a particular place for 2 % years is not mandatory but it only provides for posting a person at a partjcular place for a maximum period of 2 % years and not more than that. In the case, according to the petitioner, the petitioner has been transferred within a period of about 8 'months. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. exercise of mala fide or violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order. 5. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the policies are mere gujdelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is lt il ^:^— Gowri conferred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others1). It is also well-settled 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 administrative exigency. This Court has limited Jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P. Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu and another^, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anofher , State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others , Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' (2007)83cc212 :! 1974(4)3cc 3 3 (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 4 (1995)33cc 270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 6 (2009) 8~SCC 337 1.