^ c^ /^7. ;IT PETITI TIT G,€.N• _/sefr»-20'0 son ot Lats . aqed about 4S Presently posted as 5.D.0. (P), Oharam iaiaarh. resident of 6ram Karkati. Tehsit Keshkaaf. District iastar {C6) IT; A^eY^^ \° ''..••'"^Nlp'''"...' >••••' v' ^-•^.^6^" ^••"^'-^y' ril :IT PETITIi 1. State of Chhattisaarh Thro.bah; the Secretarv. Deoartment of Home, (Police) D.K.S. Bhawan, Raisur. ^'. - . - -. 2. Director Seneral of Police. Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C6) 3. InsDector (Seneral of Poiice. Chhattisgarh, Raipur. r ©eneral of Police. / Bilaspur Range (C6). 226 OF As shown In the cause title. PAftTICULARS OF THE RESP As shown in the cause title. 'AlN-ST v/HICH Tl w •der No.l40776o-6rih/Ra.Pu.Se./2009 R n IU passed by Kest fated 06'03.2010 is filed herewi '9 RaiDur dated t No.l. Coov of order h as ANNEXURE P-1. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1247 OF 2010 G.N. Baghel Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sandeep Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 7th day ofApril, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 6-3-2010 (Annexure - P/1) whereby the petitioner working as Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Dharamjaigarh, Raigarh, has been transferred as Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Chhotedongar, Narayanpur on administrative ground. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the transfer of the petitioner to Chhotedongar, Narayanpur is contrary to the policy dated 26-11-2005 (Annexure - P/2), as the petitioner had already served more than two decades in the naxal infested area and the petitioner was injured also during his service. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the transfer policy dated 26-11-2005, relied on by the petitioner, is not applicable in case of police personnel. There is a separate policy dated 1-4-2006 (Annexure - R/1) for posting of the police personnel wherein there is no restriction in case of transfer of gazetted officer. On promotion, the officer can be posted anywhere except in his home district. On promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Officer (Police) i.e. gazetted post, the petitioner was posted at Dharamjaigarh, Raigarh, on 6-10-2007. Thereafter, after about 3 years the impugned transfer order was passed posting the petitioner at Chhotedongar, Narayanpur. Thus, the posting of the petitioner is not contrary to the policy of the State. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, the contention of the learned State counsel that there is a separate policy for transfer of the police personnel, merits acceptance, as it is clearly found that the policy dated 26-11-2005 (Annexure - P/2) relied on by the petitioner is applicable to the civil servants, not to the police personnel. There is jno restriction under the policy to post the gazetted officer at any place :ill'.A "'?>). .{' 'fc^NNj | / .<" -f .1 and he should be posted at leas.t for a period of three years in naxal infested area. It is a trite law that the transfer policy is not a rule, but mere guideline. If there is a simple diversion from the transfer policy on account of administrative exigency, the transfer order cannot be held as vitiated. There is no other ground i.e. infraction of Rules, lack of competence of the officer passing the order or case of mala fide pleaded in this petition, which may enable the Court to interfere with the impugned transfer order. Be that as it may, it is ' the well-settled principle of law that transfer/posting of an employee is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa'v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothei^, Stale of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others3, MoM. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Ofhers v. G. Ratnam & Ofhers and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. In the result, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- .. _ SafehK.^ihotrl judge 1 1974(4)8cc3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4 (2007)88cc 150 5 (2007)~8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337