m x a” 967 s'nglg Beneb iN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ILASPUR WRIT PETITIOMS} N0.§Z?3§ OF 2009 PETITIONER: &hiv Nath Prasad Sahu, - Aged About— 56 Years, S/o- Late .Abhi Ram Sahu, ‘ Occupation— Service- Posted as Accountant, g Office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal , Development, Korba, Distt— Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTjS[: LXSt’ate of Chhattisgarh Through ‘ Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, D.K. S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2.Collector (Tribal p Development), Korba, - Distt- Korba (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, \//Tribal Development, Korba, Distt— Korba (C.G.) 4.Chief Executive Officer, r“ i Janpad ‘ Ranchayat Kartala, Distt. ”"Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION ‘OF INDIA B HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 5235 0f2009 WRIT PETITIGN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotrii J. Present: Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 07‘ day of October, 2009) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29‘“ August, 2009 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, working as Accountant in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Korba, has been transferred and attached in the office ot‘Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kartala, District Korba, on administrative grounds. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a representation (Annexure P/3) to the respondent-authority raising his grievance, but the same is pending consideration till date. Shri Pandey flirther submits that the impugned transfer and attachment order is contrary to the circular dated 04th June, 2001 (Annexure PM). It is further contended that there was no administrative exigency to transfer the petitioner as after transfer ofthe petitioner from the office of Assistant Commissioner, "Tribal Welfare, Korba, one K.P.Bhoi, Accountant, has been posted in place of the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. PETITIONER : Shiv Nath Prasad Sahu. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of ,. 4. It is well-settled principle of law 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 an adinistrative exigeny. d m c (See E.P,R0yappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another], Shilpi Bose (Mm) and others vi State of Bihar & another2, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another3, State ofM and another P v. S.S.Kourv and others4 and Mond. Masood Ahmad v. State of UP. & Othersj). 5. The contention of the petitier that there is no administrative exigency for passing the impugned order as one K.P.Bhoi as been posted in h place of the petitioner, is misplaced as in case of transfer, if one employee is posted at a particula place the person occupying the said place is alway replaced and posted at some other place. So far as serz t contention of the petitioner that the impugned tranforder is conrary to the circular dated 04m June, 2001 (Annexure P/4) is concerned, it is mere guidelines and not controlley statutory provisions. The effect d-b 1 1974 (4) scc 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 scc 659 3 (2004) 4 scc 245 4 (1995) 3 scc 270 5 (2007) 8 scc 150 $31": on r , s ”5K g thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. The transfer policy and the circular dated 04m June, 2001 has been issued neither under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. In Chief C0mmercz'al Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ramam & 0thers6, the Supreme Court observed as under: “20. It is well settled that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to actin certain circumstances; but that will not make such instructions statutory rules which are justiciable in certain circumstances. In order that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rule, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred 0n the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ” Thus, the petitioner has not acquired any right to continue at a particular place. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any.permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference with the impugned transfer order. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. /‘~ -..at i 7 1' 5(‘ggnihotr't; . “K. LSauS Judge x 5 (2007) 8 scc 212 /