^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH, i&i.^/^.^Wf Prabhat Tiwari, S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Tw/ari, aged 35 years, Occupation Sen/ice, presentiy posted as Constab!e, resident of Viliage & P.0. Sornni, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 't of Dau lipur State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretap/, Departr Home (Police), IVtantralaya, Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, (Chhattisgarh) Director Chhattis< General of Police Head Assistant Inspector General of Police (Admn-IJ), Office of Director Genera! of Poiice Chhattisgarh, Poiice Head Quarter, Ra'pur (C.G.) WRiT PETiTION UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF iNDIA Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Amit Verma, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Govt. Advocate forthe State on advance copy. & 6147/2007i iUNIL KUiVIAR SiNHA, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of transfer dated 10.09.2007, by v/hich, after repatriation to the Headquarter of the parent department, a nev/ postlng has been glven to the petitioner. \: -. ^. Learned Senior Counse! appearing for the petitioner argues that previously the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Transport Department and after compietion of the deputation period, he was repatriated to the parent department and when the petitioner gave his joining at Police Headquarters, Raipur, he has been transferred and posted to a District, which is a naxalite affected area. He argues that there is a po!icy of the Government dated 01/04'2006, according to which, the transfer has to be affected. He refers to ciause 7 of the Poiicy and submits that the policy is not reasonabte and following that policy, the transfer shouid not have been affected. He further refers to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Kendriva Para 4 ofthe aforesaid'decision reads as under: "Transfer which is an incidence of sen/ice is not to be interfered v^ith by the Courts uniess It is s'nown to be ciearly arbitrary or visited by maia flde or infraction of any prescribed norms of principies governing the transfer (See Ambans' Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 (Suppt.) 4 SCC (169). Unless the order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in violation of operative guideiines, the Court cannoS interfere with it (see Union of india v. S.L. Abbas. AIR 1993 SC 2444). Who shouid be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala nde or is made in vioiation of operative any luidelines or ruies the Courts should not ordinariiy interfere with it. Sn Union of India and Ors. V. Janardan Debanath & Anr. (2004) 4 5CC 245, it was observed as follows : "No Government sen/ant or employee of a pubiic undertaking has any iegal righi to be posted forever at any one particuiar place or piace or his choice since transfer of a particular empioyee appointsd to the class .or category of transferabie posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of sen/ice, necessary too in public interest and efflciency •-.t^ in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normaily cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appe'tate authorities substituting their own declsion for that of the empioyer/management, as against such orders passed jn the interest of administrative exigencies of the sen/ice concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in Nationai Hydroeiectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574" After going through the contents of fhe Writ Petition as aiso the decision referred to by learned counsei for the petitioner, it is ciear that transfer is an incidence of service and nobody working on a transferabie post can claim for his posting at a particuiar piace. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by maiande or is shown to be aifected by extraneous consideration or is issuea' against any statutory Rules or the Act, the same cannot be interfered by a Court of Lavv. In the present case, iearned counsel for the petitioner could not make out a case either of arbitrariness or of maiafide or of extraneous consideration or that the transfer order is passed against any statutory ruies or the Act, rather tlie Poiicy referred by learned counsei for the petitioner itseif says that after repatriation, a person has to be posted in naxaiite affected area, therefore, there does not appear to be vioiation ofthepoiicyatso. So far as reasonableness ofthe Poiicy is concerned, this Policy was framed as back as Jn the year 2006 and !t vvas weli within the dominion of the makers of the Poiicy to frame it. While exercising the power ofjudicial review, in such matters, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority. it is the settled principie that the Courts are not to interfere in the matter of poiicy, which admittedly lies in the dominion ofthe makers ofthe same, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory pov/ers. ^. Shyn; Uniess the action or the decision of the Government is shown to be unconstitutiona! or contrary to statutory provisions, or arbitrary or irrational, or is abuse of power, or discriminatory, the same cannot be interfered by the High Court under v/rit jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constltution of India. In the present case, the matter reiates to police force. What shouid be the best poiicy for posting of the po!ice force to meet the need of the people at iarge or to serve the exigency of ser/ice is the exclusive dominion of the department itseif. The department has always a choice in baiancing pros and cons reiating to the policy. Leamed counsei for the petitioner couid not make out a case that either the policy was framed by transgressing any specifsc provision or is arbitrary or maiafide, therefore, the arguments on the ground of reasonabieness of the policy, in the facts and circumstances ofthis case, cannot be entertained. do not find anv reason to interfere with the order offransfer. The petition has nolnerit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge