RESPONI3ENT3 he HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘I3GW, Hn-A“?UR w. P. gs; No. 3V45 of 2008 I’E‘f‘l'fiONER ‘ P.L. Pantt'l s/o bhn B.L. Panth, aged smut 53 ye‘ars, R/o Kedia Colo‘hy, Pendra Romi, District BilaspmCG) Very” State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secrstaxy, Water Resom‘ces Department, DK$ Bhawan, Raipur ‘ (ca). 2. Addl. Secmtarv, Water Resources Departmem, V D.K.S. Bhawzm, Raipur(CG) 3 Enginew—in—Chiei} Water Resources Depart‘ment, Sihawa Bhawan; 4. Shl‘i RL. Charnmkar, Asst. Engineer, Water Resources Uepartmcm, Pendxa Road, BilaspwCG) WRIT PETITION FILEI) ‘UNI)ER ARTICLE 226f22‘1 0? TILE wHgTITUTION GE IE’L‘-IA ‘ (k RaipmCG) ‘ Appearance: Shri Pb Koshy, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun $ao. Government Advocate for the State on advancc copy. QBAL QRDEr (mommosi‘ ‘ SUiiIL KUMAR SilWHA, J. Heard. The petitioner, who is working on the ln-charge post of Sub Divisional Ofiicer. Kohni, Marwahi, has been Hansierxed to Raipur on administrative glmmds. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is a victim of frequent twnsfexs. as he has been transferred for four 11'mes since 14. 10.2005 till the impugned order dated 3.8.2008. He secondly argues that the petitioner has not 1 completed more than 2 ‘lz years at Kotmi. therefore, thetransfer Within such a short period is in violation of the I’oh‘oy framed by ’ / the State. ’I‘hiidly, he‘wo’uid argue that the petitioner belongs to t K y 2 mm ($1 No.3746l2008 Scheduled Caste; mcmfore, (such frequent displacement of the petitioner 1's in violation of cimular of the Government dated 12m dune 2008. I have carefully considexed the points misecl by learned counsel for the petitioner. $0 far as the iixst tmnsfer order dated 14. 10.2005 (Annexme P] 2) referred by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in fact, it was a promotion order of the petitioner, by which he Was promoted and posted to Janjgir £mm Pendra. The secondrotder dated 11.8.2006(Annexu1e P] 3) 1's an omer, which was passed on account of aboliu'on of the ofiice of the peu‘n‘oner at danjgir and as an aj‘ft‘ect of such abolition. allremployees working in the ottice were sent to dismct otlice at Bilaspur. Thereafter, by an order dated 9.2.200?(_Annexule (13/4), the petitioner was posted at Kotmi, Where he worked up to 5.8.2008 and now by the impugned order, he has been transferred from Kotmi to. Raipur, therefore, in all fairness, it cannot be said that inrsuch a situation, the petitioner would be a victim of frequent transfers or displacements, which may said to be an outcome of malaiides on the part of the Government. As far as the conditions of the transfer policy about not transferring an oiiicer prior to the specified period 1‘s concerned, needless to say that the policies of the Government are made tor better functioning of the department and as far as possible they are to be followed. That is to say that the provisions ofthe policies are not strictly enforceable by law. The reasonableness of deviation from the transfer policy has to be examined on the touchstone of arbitrariness, malatide actions and extraneous considerations along with violanon oi‘any statutory rules or the Act relating to the subject in question. If the order of transfer even though deviated from the policy, stands scrutiny on the above touchstones, it cannot be said to he bad in law. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of speciiications in the policy is misoonceivecl and the same cannot be /\. entertained. i V , 3 waisp Nwmstzoog As far as the argument regarding violation of the cimulars of the Government dated 12.6.2008 is concerned, on the above bmad features of the case submitted before this Conn, it cannot be said that the Government or any authority of the (i‘overnment has wolated this circular in the matter of the petitioner. For the foregoing discussions, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter of tmnsfer of the petitioner on the above gmuncls. The petition has no merits and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. [ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge r \ r