wWf/f 3mm ”a ® 1N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARg AT BILASPUR (CHHKTTISGARHI WRIT PETITIOMS) No. é, I8i’ (2009. PETITIONER: / Ku.Sandhya Manohar, D/o G.N.Manohar, aged about 49 years, Principal, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Resgondents / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Education Department, Dau KalyanSingh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education Officer, Rajgarh, / District Raigarh, Chhamsgarh. WM WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDg / / w . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETm'ON‘gS) No. 6187 of2069 PETITIONER : Ku. Sandhya Manohar. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aggjhotg‘: J. RESPGNDENTS Present: Shri C.J.K.Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. ’ Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the ‘ State/respondents. ORDER ORAL) § (Pasmd on 29 day ofOeLober, 2009) - 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1“ October, 2009 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner working as Principal at Govemment Girls Higher Secondary School, Raigarh, haé been transfeired to the oflice of District Education Officer, Raigarh, 2. The grounds for challenge to the impugned transfer order are that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy 2009-2010. Further, the petitioner is suffering from ailment. The petitioner has also alleged malatide against the respondent authorities. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4. Transfer ofthe petitioner from the Government Girls Higher Secondary, School, Raigarh to the office of District Education Odicer, Raigarh i.e. i within the same place and it does not amount to transfer, as it does not require any change in place and residence. The ground that the petitioner is suffering from ailment is noticed to be rejected as when the petitioner can take treatment while posting at Government Girls Higher does no amount to transfer. t Secondary School Raigarh, she can very well take treatment when she is posted at the office of the District Education Officer, Raigarh as the impugied order is a mere posting order from one place to another, and it The grounds raised by the petitioner does not come within the purview of malafrde exercise ofpower as in transfer matter, it is for the employer to post an employee at a particular place having regard to the public interest and administrative exigency. Thus, the petitioner has miserably failed to prove malafide in the present case. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not made allegations against any particular officer who has exarcised malice against the pstitioner. in Shiipz' Base (Mm) and others v. State 0fBz‘har & another], the Supreme Court observed as under: “4. In our opinion, the couns should not interfere with a transfer order which is made interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in Violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground ofmala tide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders are issued by the competent authority do not Violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in Violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-dav transfer order issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. " 7. Transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular olticer/ employee be posted, keeping in View 1 t1991) . Supp 2 scc 659 g§ public interest as weli as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved maiafide, 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 ofpublic interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu and another}, Union oflndz'a and another V. Janardhan Debanath &-cmother3, State ofMP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others4 and Mohd. Masood/lhmad V. State ofU.P. & Oti1ers5). 8. So far as contention ofthe petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the transfer policy 2009-10 is concerned, transfer policy is mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. 9. In Chief Commercial Manager, South Centrai Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Rainam & Otherf, 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 act in 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 ‘on the Central Government or 2 i974 (4) SCC 3 J (2004) 4 scc 245 4 r1995) ( 3 SCC 270 5 (2007) 8 scc 150 6 (2007) g sc 212 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 instmctions 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. " 10. 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. 11. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge W