^•:^%^-§-!: •n-140-'.^5h-^A11^. nWi^^'T'),.1?..^--'' T) 'SMR'! E. R,"SNS;M fc§^:!S.^l_3^' g^^e^^3@ •a^^&'^wsa^'^ ^^?^ IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF JU&tCATURE AT BILASPUR ££&} WRITPETTTION ( S } NO^S3<b OF 2009 PETETEONER : Sirish Chouhan S/o. Late Shri K. 5. Chouhan aged about 37 Years, Occupation- Service, Posted as Patwari at Halta hto. 6 Lubha, Tahsil - Makdi, tx'stt-.- Jagdalpur (C.6.) VERSUS RESPON&ENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh. through the Secretary Revenue bepartment, &.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Jagdalpur. &istt- Jagdalpur (C.6.) WRITPETITION UN&Eft ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR I5SUEANCE OF APPROPRIATC WRIT, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ PetitionJSLNo^ 5836^f 2009 Girish Chouhan VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh SE another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE_ 226_ OF _THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the pedtioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. O R D ER (Oral) (Passed on this 8th day of October, 2009} 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging fhe order dated 1.10.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Collector, Jagdalpur i.e. Respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred at the present place of posting i.e. Patwari Halka No. 6 Lubha, Tahsil Makdi, District Jagdalpur about one year and sbc months before. Within a short period of about one year and 6 months, by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009, the petitioner has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 6, Mode, Tahsil - Farasgaon. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009 as many as 67 Patwaris have been transferred and posted, looking to the administradve exigency and public interest. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies on a Circular dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/2), wherein it is stated that a list of all the Patwaris, who are working for the last five years be prepared and sent so that the steps can be taken for tbeir placement. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the pedtioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of the eircular dated 29.8.2009, I do not find that there is any .^S3 ^ :-*\ restriction from transferring a Patwari before coinpledon of five years. 6. Submission of the petitioner is contrary to the well-settled principle of law that if there is any violadon of any executive instructions that may not be the ground for interfering with the transfer order. Thus, the aforesaid contention that the transfer order has been passed contrary to the circular/policy issued by the Government, is rejected. 7. It is well-settled 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 raalafide, 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 and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, ShUpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another2, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another3, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others4 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. 8s Others5). 8. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the circular/policy dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/3) is concemed, the circular/policy is mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions or under some provisions of the Consdtudon providing therefor. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See Chief Comtnercial ISanager, ' 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4 (1995)38cc 270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 ^*:,:''^.^.. i ""s^; y'sM\ @ "'^; c .s' s 'iS'-'B.'"'1 .-11' ^•^...sSif Thakur South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others6) 9. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warranting interference with the impugned transfer order. 10. For the reasons as afore-stated, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- satishK.Agnihow Judge