HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMARSINHA WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.3649/2010 PETITIONER Awadesh Pandey aged 42 years son of Shri R.J. Pandey Sub Engineer, P.N.D. (B/R) Sub Division Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through: ' Principal Secretary, Public Works Department Raipur (C.G.), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Tor the petitioner. Mr. R. Tripathi, Panet Lawyer for the State/respondent on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (21.07.2010) SUNIL KUMARSINHA.J. Heard. Petitioner- Awadesh Pandey has filed this petition challenging the order dated 15.07.2010, by which he has^been transferred from Kanker to Bhanupratappur. The petitioner is working on the post of Sub- Engineer. The order Annexure-P-1 dated 13' August, 2009 would show that he was working as a daily wages employee in Kanker and by the said order he was given a regular posting in Kanker itself and thereafter he has been fransferred to Bhanupratappur by the impugned order dated 15.07.2010. Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that according to the transfer policy, an employee should not be transferred unless he completes 2 &1/2 years at a place. He aiso argues that a male child of the petitioner is student of elass-8ul, who 4S studying in a local institution, therefore, his studies may also be jeopardized on account of prder of transfer. So far as the poticy relating 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 policy has no stetutory effect. ^^ WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 3649/2010 ^ The policy is simply a guideline to ihe authorities concern. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to pray for issuance of a writ on the contents ofthepolicy. So far as ground relatlng to child of the petitioner is concemed, we note that this is not a mid-session fransfer. Moreover that ground is also not available to the Government servant for the purposes of quashment oftransfer order by a Court law. Transfer is an incidence of service. No person working on a transferable post can make his claim for posting at a particutar place. It is for the employer to see as to who should be posted at which place, keeping in mind the better functipnlng ofthe department as also the public iterest. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by matafides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Rute or the Act, normally 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 ttie petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge