€^= .'l--'3rs3 INTHEHON'BLEHIGHCOURTOFGMHATnSGARHATBIt.ASPUR WRITJPETITIQN (S) N6. i^-^ ^— OF 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ ..••;,./• v ,^' ^^ '-^SK.ss^'y^' >:i^I?y<:y.--» ^^{f^:^^! " Sushil Malik aged about 35 years S/p Late Shn B.N.Malik, pccupation: Sen/ice, Working as Traffic Police Officer Rajpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS (^, 1, State QfChhattiSgarhTlirsughSeoretary, Government of Chhattisgarh; DepaFth-lerTt cif Mome (Police), Mantralaya, DK& Bhawan, ,'Raipur,;CI-ihattisgarh^ • . ^ ' .. ^.^ • ,2. Director ©eneral of Police, Poliee; Meadquarters, Raipur, GHh^isgarh^^^^.' • 3. Chajrman, Roliee Establishment Board, Raipur, ChhattisgarH. 4. Chief Electiori Qfficer^ ©hhattisgarh,Raipyr, 1.' '^ .Chhattisgath;.. yl.lS^^?,^'.'.. :1"S::.." '••:^'^ .'5...1nsp®Gfl^p.ijgii^|ii^lfi(||§gEiliee|g^(8rT)^ :He^quSi:lBr§gl:^ijSffl8SjUiKj|gSI!t%!^^^^ ^:^yl:i1Sge|l^|^ii||'i^lgs@^:|l|€Blii|e!g;s|^(i|j;uig1: .^:lih^i§ga!'(m%g:®%?-^%^gS®'&!KStf^ •:7.-'^SUp^]Tin:t®[T£le^®^R^i8^!jBJiSt^^ ChHattisgarhn;'?,B.^^'^i^^i:%aBi^ WRIT PET11-IQN U?N@B% INDIA RQR ISSUiStBlliSE "t lt-u—»w-' IVIAN^DAIVIUS.^|jC»f||Irl^g|B|||SKlBn|n DiREeTioNs^oRi3iiRs^^ia@BKigngi'HBBi;iMBagggg|gg|B^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justjce Pntmker Dhwaker) Writ Petitipn (S) No. 1494of 2009 PETmONER : SushilMalik Versus RESPQNDENTS TheStateofC.G.andothers. Post Tor pronouncement of the wder on 2-0 .8.2009. Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge ^ '^' HK3H COURT OF CHHAm^H AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justlce Pritinker Diwaker) WritPetition(S)No. 1494of200® PETITIONER Sushil Malfk. VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of C.G. & i^hers. Shri RanbirSingh Marhas.counselforthepetitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy.A.G.Tortherespondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTnTUTION OF INDIA ORDER (2.0.08.2009) Wtth the consent of the counsel fbr the parties the petition is heard finally. ^ Challenge in this petition is te the order dated 28.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) passecf by respondent No.2 by whteh the petitioner who Isworking as Traffic Police Offteer, Raipur, has been transferred to Bijapur in the ^ime capacity, 6n administrativeground. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present place of posting the petitioner had joln«lon 27.8.2008 after beingtransferred from tenkerand now by the order impugned he has agaln been •^iisent-to Bijapurwhich fsanaxalliteaffeeted area. He furthersubmits that eartier the petitioner has already spent more than 6 years in the naxallite affected area. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitiener belongs to the schedyled tribe community and irr view of the circutar dated 12.6.2008 issuedbythe StateGovemment thepetitioner canniot be subjected to frequent transfer on administrative exigency as has been done in the case of the petitioner. He further submite thait as thepetitionerisamemberofscheduledtribecommunity.hejsbe'tng -t '<<: -'-SSc •/I k, ft.K s/ -2- * ^ harassedbytheauthoritiessubjectinghimtofrequentttansfersthat tooin the naxallite affected areas. 4. Percontra eounsel for the respondents/Statesubntitsttiatthe petltioner has been transferred on adminfstrative exigency and he has no right to remain in a particular place of his own chotee. He further submits that even as per the policy of the State Qovemment the minimum period prescribed for the Inspectors to serve in the naxallite affected area ts five years but it does not prescribe the maximum time lim'rt with r^ard to their posting in such areas. Relevant portion of the policy of the State Govemment reads as under: 4. Wtero wi ^ w»er4 :• (i)...................................... 09...................................... ftiJ) ^R veri ^ arfSmtNF ^t ft*ii<i ^ ^a <)4l*lcf VTVf ^ V^ 05 ^t 7W3vf Wtf^S ^ff ^f yf ^^T shn i 4<sl;niRi T^Kwr 4<wu'it 03 q^ <rl't«cfl l^crf ^F ?ft utld<n 1 cRWqra" aPT ^fcff 4 y^'wiy'ii T? ft^R ?T w^lrr i Thus according to the State counsel It does not lle in the mouth of the petitionerto say that as he has already servectin the naxatlite affected area for more than 5 years, he can not b& posteet In such area agatn. He fcrther submits that the p^itioner can not take th& advantage ofAheft'ansferpolicyofthe Govemmentdatal 1.4.2006 beoause they are merely the guidelines having no statutory ftwce. 5. As regards the harassment meted out to the petittoner at the handsofthe authoritfes on account of his belonging to scheduteJ tribecommunlty, ithasbeenargued bythestatecounseltl'atinlhe / adminfstrative exigency any employee can be transferred to any ; place irrespecfive of the communlty he t>etongs to. This apaft, no material has been placed by the petitfoner to demon^rate that tt is only the offlcere betonglng to the scheduled tribe comnKinfty are being shifted to the naxallfteaffected areas and not the othere. He I t'1 ..f-SS!s: ^i. iil WSaP^lli R y c further submits that in theState ofChhattisgarh out of 16 nevenue dfstricts 12 have been declared as naxallite affected areas and therefore the policeoffieers are bound to be tran^erred to such areas irrespective ofGaste andcreed as is alleged by the petitloner inthiscase. 6. Heard counset for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is settled law that transfer is an tncidence of service and a government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at the place of hls own choice. Even tf a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instru(rtions or orders, the courts ordinarilyshoyld not interfere with the order; in^ead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the departmert apprislng them of their grievances. Whteh govemment servant is to be posted where Is the exclusiveconsideration Of the employer. The submission ofthe petitioner that an incumbent has to be posted in a naxaltite area only for a period of flve years.has no force at all because the Guideltnes of the State Govemment stipulate the minimum period of posting in a naxallite areaas five years but this does not mean that the Incumbent has got exemption from being posted insuch areas having remainai once in such areas for five years. It would not be out of place to menUon that no maximum period with respect to their posting in suchareas has been stlpulataf in the said guidelines. If admlnistrative ex^gency so warrants any govemmentservant can be posted anywhere and such decision taken by the Government is always in consonancewith the judicial pronouncementsofthe Supreme Courtih series of cases. Further the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate the fact that as he belongs to thescheduled tribe community, he Is being subjected to frequent transfer that too in naxallite affected areas and therefore the order impugned cannot be interfered with only on the basis of vague allegations of mala fldes. ..^./-f .4 8. Thus, in view of theaforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned transfer order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference with the same. The petition is absolutely withoutsubstance and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. Itis dismissed as such. 9. Before parting with the case, this Court hopefully expects the high ranking police officers of the State of Chhattisgarh to inculcate asense of enthusiasm amongst the police personnel so as to combat the notorious anti social elements active in the State and redeem the innocent State dwellers from the deptorable condition being faced by them, by deploying the police machinery at the places irrespective of the Naxallite ridden ones if administrative exigency indeed so demands. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker y Judge !i II! 11 r!ii{ ^^^Si^^^^ ^^i 'Si'SS.-s'si^SSKSS^-SSiSSESSSSIgSS