C61 \zfz; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BII ASPUR $§§ iE gEN§E§ W.P. (S) No 7H L /2009 f PETITIONER Mahesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shn Bhag1rath1 Sahu Age 36 years Occunatlon Patwarl Basantpur Ward No 40, Near Club Chowk, Rajnandgaon CG VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1, State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur (CG) 2. District Collector, Rajnandgaon Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Sub—divisional Officer (Revenue) District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Tahsildar, Tahsil Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon CG TION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Fm? IQQIIANPF‘ mi‘ A WRIT IN 'I‘I—IF NATIIRI? n]? MANDAMIIQ PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER I HEGH COURT OF CHE-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 71 12 0f2x')09 ‘ WRIT PETITXON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Saieem Kazi, Advocate for the peti‘doner. Shri NLRSBhatia, Deputy Government Advecate for the Statefrespomdents. ORDER gORAL) (Passed on O4 day of December, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioaer impugns the order dated 7m October, 2099 (Annexare W3) whereby the petitioner, working as Patwari at Patwari Hallut No. ()9, Tami} Rajnandgaon has been transferred to Patwari Haika Nox 19, Aundhi, Tahsil Abhanpur, near border of Andhra Pradesh. Shri Kazi, learned counse} appearing for the petitioner submits that since the wife of the petitioner was posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade H at Bhothiparnaya, the petitioner made a representation on 25m September, 2909 (Annexure P/Z) to the respondent N0. 2. Shri Kazi further submits that without considering his representation, the petitioner has been transferreo to Patwari Haika No. 19, Village Aundhi, Tahsil Manpur by the impugned ortier, which according to the petitiOner is about 160 KM. away from his present piace of posting. The action of the respondent/State is is contrary to the poiiey of circular dated 25th Max 1995 (Aimexure P/7) issued by the Generai Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. U). I have heard iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pieadings and the memo dated 29m May, 1995. The policy of the State Government is to place the husband and the wife at a same place as far as possible. It is a mere guideiine and is not a statutory rule. It starts with the word ‘as far as possible and practicable in the pubiic interest and administrative exigency’. In the said policy, it has been thither clarified that no government servant can claim it as a matter of right to be posted at one place. 4. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular oiticer/emnlovee be posted: ‘1’ETITIONER : Mahesh Kumar Sahu. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. 2 keeping in View public intsrest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfare with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved malaiide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the mles and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules: employer has ail the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nada and 7 another], Union oflhdz‘a am’ another v. Jami‘dhan Debanath & another”, State ofi‘t/IP. and another v. S.S.K0urav and othersa and Moira]. Masood Ahmad v. Stare of U.P. & Othersq). 5. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the poiicy ofthe State Government is concerned, the policies are mere guidelines and not controiled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legai right is conferred upon the employee. (See: C’m‘ef Commercial Manager, Sour}: Central Railway, Secanclarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Othersi). 6. The Supreme Court, in Airports Authority offndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Othersé. held that “in a matter of transfer of a government employee, scope ofjudicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer”. 7. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference. y ‘ 8. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. - Sd/— . Satish K. Agnihntri l‘ udge AmiT. l (1974) 4 SCC 3 2 (2004i 4 scc 245 3 (199363'scc _ 27o 4 s in, 3Mcons ’ scc i50 (2007) s scc 217 — 6 {2909)‘8 scc 333 , J