i c^ CD, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. ^3^5~ /2011 PETITIONER ^x^"". ^\ -^\Q.>^^ ^s^ '^:- RESPONDENTS Siya Ram Sahu S/o Shri Gajadhar Prasad Sahu, aged about 44 years, ' Working as Cattle Paricharak Posted at Pashu Aushdhalaya Bijhara, Block Development Officer Podiuproda, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Veterinary Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Director Pashu Chikitska, Ser^ices Chhattisgarh Raipur 3) The Deputy Director Pashu Chikitska, Services Korba District Korba (C.G.) 4) The Collector, Korba District Korba (C.G.) 5) Assistant Surgeon Pashu Chikitska, Services, Block Development Podiuproda District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FORJSSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. ®—- y "•''—. J ff (^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR PET1TIONER WRIT PKI'ITION (S) No. 4375 of2011 Siya Ram Sahu. RESPONDENTS VERS'US State ofChhattisgarh & (Mhers. WRl'I PE'ITIION 'UNDER .^RTICLE 226 OF I'HE CONS'nTUTlQNOFINDIA SB: Ho'ii^ble Shri Satish K. Agmliotri, J. Present: Shri U.R.Koshaley, Advocate fbr the pctitioner. Sliri Arun Sao, Govenmient Advocate for the State/ respondents. OMDE.RCORAL) (Passed on 09ul day ofAugust, 2011) 1, Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 15.07,2011 (Amiexure P/l). the petitioner, workmg as Atteiidant at Vetermas'y Dispensary, Bijiira, Block Podi-Uproda.., has beeii-.trasisterred to Vctermaiy Hospital, Kartala, Block Kaslala, Dis'Irict Korba, on adaiiinistrative gi'ounds. Ste Koshaley further subnBts that the impugned traiisfer order is bad m law cn thc .ground that earlier, the petitioner was transfeiTed on 25.06.2009 (Aimexure P/4) aiid on 15.07.2010 (Amiexwe P/3). Thus. the present 'ti'anster of the petitioner comes witliin the pm-view of frequent traiisfer. He next conte.nds that before completing 2 l/i years ofservice at the present place ofposting, fhe petitioner camiot be transferred as the same is contrary to the transfer policy dated 30.06,201 !„ Shii Koshaley also submits that Ae pcircnts ofthe petitioner are aged about 70 years and fhere m no male members to look after them. ,^ ^^. 2. On the other b.a.nd, Sto 8ao, leamed ' Govemment Advocate appearisig fbr the State/respondents siibmits fhat fhere is no illegality or infinmty in the transfer order and the same has been passed cn account of administrative exigency. Thus, this Court niay 2iot mterfere with the impugaed traiisfer order. 3. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings a.nd documents appended thereto, 4. On pemsal ofthe transfer order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P/3), it is evident 'tiiat the same was passed on tlie req'uest of the petitioner, rniereattcn the impugiied traiisfer order dated 15.07»2011 (Amiexure P/l) has been passed.after a lapse ofabout oiie year. Thus, the same does not fall within the category of frequent transfer, The petitioxier has not challenged the impugned transler order 011 any other penBissible legal gi'ound Le. violation ofany slatirtory rules or regulations or lack ofcompetence offhe ofiicer, passing tlie impugned order. 80 tar as contention of the petitioner that the impugiied transfer is contrary to 'the 'tansfer policy of the State, it is well settlcd fhat thc policies are mere guidelmes and not controlled by sUiuiory provisions. The eflect thereota is advisory m character aiid 'thereby no legal right is coxri'eiYed upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, Soutk Central Raiiway, Secundarabad & Others Vn G. Ratnam & Othersi). 5. It is also well-settled that tra.nsfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ofllcer/employee be po^ted, keeping in view public iiiterest as well 1(2007^8SCC212 as admmistrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to mterfere with the transter matter except in the cases of proved maia fide, non-compctence of authority passing the transfer order and not bemg m confbnmty wifh the mles and regulatiorte. The • petitioner/employee camiot be permitted to reniam at one place forever. Under the provisions ofsei'viee mles, employer has all tlie powers to post an employee at a particular place in view ol public interest and administs'ative exigency, (See E.RRoyappa v. i?tote of Tczmil Nadu and another \ Union of India and another v. Jancirdhan Debanath & another3, State qfM.P, and another v. SXKoumv and others andA^bM MasoodA.hmad v. State ofU.P. c6 Others^. In view of the above, the petitioti is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aimt : (1974)43cc 3 ' (2004) 4SCC 245 •(1895) 3 SCC 270 ' (2007)88cc 150