<^-/ ISti^e B@n@h ^T57- ^ -$> IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W^P. (S) No. $^40 /2009 PETITIONER rodam Singh Parmar S/o Late Tejan Ram Singh, Aged about 43 years, Upper Division Teacher Middle School Chitvishrampur,Balrampur,Distt.-Surguji (C.G.) ^ RESPONDENTS ^••^ <iv^ ^i^ ^ ^' • . €'_/?^' '^","f VERSUS 1^-^S'fate of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes Development Department, Mantrayalay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2, Collector (Tribal Development) Surguja, < Ambikpur(C.G.) 3. Commissioner, ' Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes Development Deptt., Raipur (C.G.) . L WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0. 5340 OF 2009 PETITIONER Godam Singh Parmar Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present:- Shri Bhupendra Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 08th day of October, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. (2) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 31-8-2009 (Annexure P/1) whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected and the order dated 30-6-2009 (Annexure - P/2) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Middle School, Chhitvishrampur, Balrampurto the office of Block Education OfRcer, Premnagar. (3) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that initially the petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the transfer order dated 30-06-2009 (Annexure - P/2) by filing a petition being W.P. (S) No.3993/2009, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court, with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the authorities concerned within 10 days. Thereafter, the respondent authorities were directed to consider and decide the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation. The impugned order was kept in abeyance during that period. (4) The petitioner cannot challenge the same order i.e. 30-6-2009 (Annexure - P/2) in the present petition, as the same has been considered and disposed of in the aforestated terms. The respondent-authorities after considering the representation of the petitioner rejected the same by a detailed order. -L- (5) I have heard tearned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. (6) The petitioner has not questioned the impugned order on the ground of mafa fkle exercise of power by a particular officer. There is a general allegation of mala fide and favouritisms. There is no allegation of lack of competence of the officer passing the order, or breach of any statutory rules or regulations. The impugned order whereby the petitioner has been transferred does not seem to be irregular or in breach of any statutory rules or regulations. The vague allegation of favouritisms and ma/a ffcte have not been proved strongly. (7) It is well-settled principte 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 w'rth the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved mala ficte, 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 EP.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) Qnd others v. Sfate of Bihar & anothe^, Uniwf offndia and anottwr v. Janardhan Debanaiff & anofhe^, State of M.P. and anotherv. S.S.Kauiv and ottwrs4 and Mohd. Masood Ahmsid v. Sfate of l/.P. & OthQrs5). (8) So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the transfer policy is concemed. the transfer policy is mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in ' 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 3(2004)4SCC245 4 (1995)38cc 270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 ^^.^ ^'"^ fh ^^'s;- ^' -^- character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. The transfer policy 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. (9) In Chief Commercial Manager, Sou t Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. RstnQm & Ofbers , the Suprome Court observed as under: "20. It is well settfed that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not make such instructions statutory rutes which are justiciable in certein circumstances. In order that such executive jnstructions have the force of statutory rule, it must be shown thatthey have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provisions of tho Constitution providing thQrofor. Therefore, even jf 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 Constjtution of India." (10) Thus, the petitioner has not acquired any right to continue at a particular place. Even otherwjse, there is no challenge to the impugned orders on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference with the impugned orders. (11) For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ; (2007)85cc 212