\W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.($) NO. 6428 OF 2008 Wri‘r pe‘ri‘rioh under Article 226 of the Cons1i1‘u1’ion of India Presenf : Dhirendra Mishra, J This pefi‘rion is direcied agains’r The order daTed 4m October, 2008 (Annexure P/1), 'whereby respondem‘ No.1 canceling/amending The earlier orders daTed 30*“ June, 2008 and 7*“ July, 2008, has Transferred The peTiTioner as Sub Engineer in fhe office of Elec’rrical 6i Mechanical Ligh’r Machinery Tube-well & Gate, Sub-Division Kanker. Mr. U’rkarsh Verma, AdvocaTe for The pe’riTioner. Ms. Suni‘ra Jain, Panel Lawyer for ‘rhe S‘rafe/responden’r No.1, on advance copy. ORDER (Passed jon Q P’November, 2008) PETITIONER Mohan Lal Gup’ra, 5/0 Shri Tikamm Gup’ra, aged about 49 year‘s, Sub Engineer (E & M) R & R, Sub Division, Durg (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. S’raTe of Chha’r’risgar‘h, Through fhe Secretary, Departmenf of Wafer Resources, DKS Bhavan, Manfralaya, Raipur (CG) 2. Shri Dilip Wasnekar, Addh‘ional Secrefary, Govt of Chhaf’risgarh, Wafer Resources Deparimen‘r, DKS Bhavan, Manfralaya, Raipur (CG) 3. - Shri K.L.‘Sahu, Execufive—Engineer (E (Si M) R & R, Durg (CG) 4. Shri R.S. Asiwal, in-charge, S.D.O. (E & M) R & R, Durg (C6) 5. ColiecTor, Durg, Disiric‘r Durg (CG) 2 \‘19 e fransfer' order on #he 2. The pzfifioner‘ has impugned ‘rhe abov ground ’rh passed in viola‘Ho af #he order is ’raim‘ed wh‘h malafides; ’rhe same has been n of transfer policy of ”the 5mm Governmen’r as i‘r has been passed during \‘he ban period wi’rhout coordina’rion wi’rh the Chief Minis’rer. 3. Learned counse! for The petitioner respondent No.4 directe over the charge of machinery to the said officers, though the petitioner was hoiding charge of the sectio amending petitioner has been r, it would be evident that the same guidelines of Annexure P/5,' coniended tha’r d the Subordinates of the petitioner to work under the Block Officer and asked the petitioner to hand n. On the pretext of the earlier transfer orders of Annexure P/Z, the posted at a new place, though his name was not included in the earlier transfer orders of Annexure P/Z. From perusal of the impugned orde has been passed in violation of the which clearly stipulates that after 1 ST July, 2008 there will be total ransfers and only under the extreme necessities, transfer ein coordination with the Chief Minister through the ban on t could be mad Chief Secretary during the ban period. It was further argued that though the guidelines issued by the Government do not confer upon right, however, transfers are in mind therguidelines issued by the matter of Union of $.L. Abbas, reported in AIR 1993 56 the employee any legally enforceable to be made keeping Government. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the India and afhers Vs. 2444. 4. On being queried, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is po posting for the last ten years. for the petitioner sted at>the present. place of /» ‘\ 5. I have heard learned counsel for The pe‘ri’rioner on admission. 6. If is setfled principles of law tha’r The guidelines for Transfer of The governmem‘ employees do no’r confer upon The employees any legally enforceable righT and The Transfers are ordinarily To be made keeping in mind The guidelines issued by The governmenT on The subject 7. So far as argumenT of learned counsel for The peTiTioner ThaT name of The peTiTioner was noT included in The earlier Transfer orders of Annexure P/Z and Therefore, his Transfer on The preTexT of canceling/amending The above orders, has been made aT The insTance of respondenTs No. 2 To 4 and The same is TainTed wiTh malafides, is concerned, The STaTe is wiThin iTs compeTency To pass fresh Transfer orders of The peTiTioner while amending The earlier Transfer and only on This ground, malafide cannoT be aTTribuTed To l The STaTe, parTicularly when by The same order, aparT from The peTiTioner, oTher 22 Sub Engineers have also been Transferred. Since The Transfer orders were direcTed To be prompTly implemenTed by respondenT No.1 and insTrucTions To ThaT effecT were issued by The superior auThoriTies To The Sub Divisional Officer, any direcTion conTained in The memo of Annexure P/3 cannoT be consTrued To be an acT of malafide on The parT of respondenT No.4. In any case, The Transfer order has been issued by The STaTe GovernmenT and Therefore, allegaTion of malafides againsT respondenTs No. 2 To 4 is irrelevanT and meaningless. 8. Thus, Taking inTo consideraTion The seTTled principle of Iaw, as has been laid down in The maTTer of Mahd. Masaod Ahmad Vs. 5fafe of U.P. and af/Iers reporTed in (2007)8 566‘ 150, ThaT The Transfer orders should noT ordinarily be inTerfered wiTh by a CourT of Iaw in exercise of its discrefionary Jurisdicfion under Arficle 4 § \ 226 ofCons‘rihhion unles's the Cour‘r finds mat ei’rher ’rhe order is mclafide or that The service ruies prohibi‘r such transfer, or ’rha’r the authorities who issued The orders were noi compei‘enf to pass The orders; and furTher keeping in view ThaT The peTiTioner was posTed aT his presenT place of p'osTing’f T is noT inclined To inTerfere wiTh The impugn of Annexure P/1. T subsTance deserves s accordingly, or The losT Ten years, This ed Transfer order Cour 9. In The resuiT, The peTiTion being wiThou To be dismissed aT The admission sTage iTSelf and i dismissed. QT .11.2ooa Ki Sdl- 10. No order as To cosTs. Dhirendra Mishra Judge J U D G E