'^ H!GN_COURT:OF CHHATTISGARH, BiLASPUR WRJT PETITION (S) No.4227/2010 PETmONER RESPgNDENTS 1 Shrilal Verma, S/o Late Shri Samay Lal Verma, aged about 41 years, Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bhat!ohanga, Dlstrict Bastar (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattlsgarh, Throughi : The Secretary, Tribai Development ' Department, D.K-S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Assistant Commlssioner, Tribal Deveiopment Depgrtment, Bastar, District Bastar(C.G.) WjRJTPETmON;UNDERARTJCLE.^28QF_.THI CONST8TUTION OF SNDIA ARDearance: Mr. Somkant Verma, Counsei for the petrtioner. Mr. R.Tripathi, Pane! Lawyer.forthe State. QRALJORDER ', (06.08.201Q) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,A Heard. Petitioner- Shrilal Verma is worklng on the post of Principai. By the impugned order dated 15.07.2010, he has been transferred from Ghatlohna Biock- Bastar to Keshkal District Bastar. : Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petjtloner is working at Ghatlohna since last more than 2 years, but he has not compieted 2 14 years at that place, therefore, according to the Transfer Poiicy, he shouid not have been transferred from Ghatiohna. He also submits that the wife ofthe petltioner nameiy'Smt. Nirupa Verma is working'as Upper Division Teacher in village ParchanpaS, which is. nearer to • 2 WRIT PETITJON (S) No.4227/2010 ^ -€ vl< shyna Ghatlohna, therefore, It would be dlfficult for the petitioner to compiy with the order of transfer. So far as the policy relating to transfer is concerned, it does not confer any right to the Government Servants to claim issuance of a writ on the grounds contained in the policy. The pojicy has no statutory effect. The poiicy 'is simpty a guldeline to the authorities concerned. Therefore, the petitloner has no legal right to pray fonssuance of a writ on the contents of the policy. So far as the ground' reiating to wife of the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say that the same cannot be,a ground for jnterference with the order oftransfer by a Court of law. Transfer is an inddence of service, no person working on a transferabfe post can make his' ciaim for posting at a partlcular place. It is for the employer to see as to who shouid b8 posted at which piace, keeping In mlnd the better functioning. of the department as also.the public interest. Unless theorder of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malafjdes or extraneous consideratlons or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Ruie or the Act, normaliy such orders 'are not to be interfered, by a Court of iaw, is the settted 'view of the Apex Court in many cases. For the foregoi.ng reasons, ! do not flndany substance' inthepetitlon.' The petition is liabie to be and is hereby dismissed. However, considering that the wife of the petjtioner is working at Parchanpal, which is nearer to Ghatlohna, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to maS<e a representatipn on this ground before the concemed authority, who may decide the same in accordance with law. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge